Agent Does Not Come Under The Ambit Of 'Consumer' : Delhi State Commission
Ayushi Rani
2 Dec 2024 9:00 PM IST
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Ms. Pinki held that an agent shares a relationship with the principal and this role is excluded from the definition of 'Consumer'.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant and the OP were involved in payment transaction services, facilitating transfers of public money to family members' bank accounts. The service required the complainant to deposit cash with the OP and was supported by an agreement, though the complainant was not given a copy. The complainant earned Rs. 2,100 per day from this work, which covered his family expenses after deducting rent, electricity, and internet bills. However, the OP abruptly stopped the service without explanation, causing the complainant to lose income and customers. The complainant claims the OP withheld Rs. 2,06,974.50, which he had deposited, despite repeated requests for a refund. A legal notice demanding the amount with interest and compensation for lost earnings was ignored. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the OP, prompting him to file a complaint before the District Commission. The Commission dismissed the complaint, following which, the complainant appealed before the State Commission of Delhi.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The OP contended that the District's Commission's order is a well reasoned order. It was claimed that the complainant was providing service to the OP's customers on a commission basis. The evidence for the same was adduced before the commission. The OP further argued that the complainant does not fulfill the requisite criteria to be called a 'Consumer'.
Observations by the State Commission
The State Commission observed that the key issue was whether the complainant qualifies as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, or if the relationship with the OP is that of a principal and agent. It was evident from the records that the complainant entered into an agreement with the OP to facilitate financial transactions as an agent, earning commissions after GST and TDS deductions. The District Commission found that the complainant provided services on behalf of the OP to third-party customers, confirming a principal-agent relationship rather than that of a consumer and service provider. The complainant's claims for daily earnings further indicated involvement in commercial activities, disqualifying him as a consumer under the Act. His argument that the work was solely for livelihood lacked merit, as the records showed significant commercial transactions with tax deductions.
The Commission concluded that the District Commission rightly interpreted the law, finding no error in its judgment. The complainant's role as an agent excluded him from the definition of a “consumer,” and there was no reason to reverse the District Commission's findings.
Case Title: Rajat Jain Vs. M/S. Indepay Network Private Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 10/2023
