ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. (Member)
1. The
first appeal arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, whereby the State Commission dismissed the complaint. In this matter it is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail as the issue to be decided in this case is as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not.
2. The complainant, Mr. I.P. Katyal, Chief Executive, Asim Engineers and Consultants, had filed a complaint against the opposite party, M/s. Poleservice (Indian Region), for a direction to pay the agreed commission, i.e. 10%. It is the contention of the complainant that he was duly authorised by the opposite party to look after the promotion of their business in the field of management for drilling of rigs and allied services for which purpose the opposite party had agreed to pay him upto 10% of Commission from the received payment. It is found from the order of the State Commission that the opposite party, at the later stage, offered the complainant the commission at 1.5% only instead of 10%. This has prompted a complainant to approach the State Commission for a direction to be issued to the opposite party to get him the due payments.
3. In response to the notice issued, the opposite party filed its reply, pleading that the complainant was not a consumer, and that the contract in question was suspended due to worsening law and order situation in Assam, where the contract was to be performed. For
these reasons and keeping the viability of the project in view, the opposite party offered him 1.5% and not 10% and ultimately prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The State Commission upon hearing both the parties held that complainant had not hired or availed of the services of the opposite party and hence he is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While dismissing on this ground the State Commission gave him liberty to approach Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the complainant has come in appeal to this commission.
5. We have heard the complainant/ appellant in person. We have also gone through the well reasoned order of the State Commission. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission in its order that the complainant is a service provider to the opposite party and ‘service provider’ cannot be a consumer. We are of the opinion that the State Commission has committed no error in coming to the conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer.
6. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the appeal. It will be open to the complainant to move the Civil Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of time spent in pursuing the present proceedings. In this connection a reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CP) 1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :
“If the appellant chooses to file a suit for the relief claimed in these proceedings, he can do so according to law and in such a case he can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while
computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit.”
Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the complainant’s rights to approach Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum.