Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(d) and 2(1)(o)– ‘Consumer’– If includes beneficiary of a statutory welfare scheme – Parliament enacted 1996 Act to regulate employment, service conditions of building & other construction workers and also to provide for their safety, health & welfare measures – Pursuant thereto, State of Rajasthan framed 2009 Rules – Rajasthan Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board was constituted – One of the schemes formulated by Board for beneficiaries registered under the Act rendered financial assistance on the occasion of marriage of a beneficiary’s daughter – Respondent obtained Labour Beneficiary Identity Card from appellants after depositing Rs.25 as registration fee and Rs.60 as annual contribution – Submitted application for availing financial aid for the marriage of his daughter – Rejected – District Forum dismissed respondent’s complaint – Order set aside by State Commission – Affirmed by NCDRC – Held: Functions of the Board squarely fall within the definition of ‘service’ within the meaning of s.2(1)(o) – Exception is a service rendered free of charge – Workers registered under 1996 Act are beneficiaries of schemes made by the Board – Upon registration, every worker is required to make a contribution to the fund at such rate per month as may be prescribed by State government – Fund is applied inter alia for meeting the expenses incurred to fulfill the objects & purposes authorized by legislation – True test is not whether the amount contributed by beneficiary is adequate to defray the entire cost of expenditure envisaged under the scheme – So long as the service rendered is not free of charge, any deficiency of service is amenable to the fora for redressal constituted under Consumer Act– u/s.2(1)(d), a ‘consumer’ includes not only a person who has hired or availed of service but even a beneficiary of a service – Public authorities such as the appellants constituted under an enactment of Parliament are entrusted with a solemn duty of providing welfare services to registered workers – Public accountability is a significant consideration underlying the provisions of Consumer Act – No reason to interfere with State Commission’s decision to award the claim, subject to modification of rate of interest by NCDRC– Building and Other Construction Workers’(Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 – ss.2(b), (k), 11, 12, 16-18, 22, 24 – Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules,1998 – Rajasthan Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 – rr.43-45, 52, 58 – Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In relation to a service, the definition of the expression incorporates in the first part any person who hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised (wholly or in part). In its latter component, the definition includes the beneficiary of such a service other than the person who actually avails of the service for consideration paid or promised, so long as such services are availed of with the approval of the person who hires or avails of the service for consideration. The ambit of the first component of the expression in Section 2(d)(ii) is expanded by the inclusive definition in the latter component. The expression ‘beneficiary’ is defined in Section 2(b), Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 to mean ‘a building worker registered under Section 12’. The expression ‘fund’ is defined in Section 2(k) to mean ‘the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Fund of a Board constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 24’. Hence, every building worker who is registered as a beneficiary under the enactment is entitled to the benefits provided by the Board from the fund. The effect of a non-payment of the contribution under sub-section (1) of Section 16 for a continuous period of not less than one year is that under Section 17 the individual ceases to be a beneficiary. However, under the proviso, a person who is in default is allowed to deposit the arrears if there was sufficient ground to satisfy the secretary of the Board in regard to the non-payment of the contribution, upon which the registration is to stand restored. Section 22 provides for the functions of the Board. Under Section 24, the statute has provided for the constitution of a welfare fund into which are credited (i) grants and loans made to the Board by the Central government; (ii) contributions made by the beneficiaries; and (iii) sums received by the Board from other sources as decided by the Central government. The fund is applied, under sub-section
(2) of Section 24 to meet the expenses of the Board in the discharge of its statutory functions; towards payment of salaries, allowances and remuneration and for meeting the expenses on objects and for purposes authorized by the Act. The Rules of 2009 have been framed in terms of the provisions governing the rule making power. Rule 43 provides for the constitution of the welfare fund. Rule 44 provides for the registration of building workers as beneficiaries. Rule 45 provides for contributions to the fund. Rule 52 provides for the expenditure from the fund. Under Rule 58, the Board is empowered to notify schemes regarding benefits. The Board has been entrusted with specific functions which have been defined in Section 22. These functions squarely fall within the definition of the expression ‘service’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The expression ‘service’ has been defined in the widest possible terms to mean ‘service of any description which is made available to potential users’. The exception in Section 2(1) (o) is a service which is rendered free of charge. The workers who are registered under the provisions of the Act of 1996 are beneficiaries of the schemes made by the Board. Upon registration, every worker is required to make a contribution to the fund at such rate per month as may be prescribed by the State government. The fund into which the contributions by persons who are registered under the Act are remitted, comprises among other sources, the contributions made by the beneficiaries. The fund is applied inter alia for meeting the expenses incurred to fulfill the objects and purposes authorized by the legislation. In view of the statutory scheme, the services which are rendered by the Board to the beneficiaries are not services which are provided free of charge so as to constitute an exclusion from the statutory definition contained in Section 2(1)(o) and Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The true test is not whether the amount which has been contributed by the beneficiary is adequate to defray the entire cost of the expenditure envisaged under the scheme. So long as the service which has been rendered is not rendered free of charge, any deficiency of service is amenable to the fora for redressal constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Act does not require an enquiry into whether the cost of providing the service is entirely defrayed from the price which is paid for availing of the service. Under the definition contained in Section 2(1)(d), a ‘consumer’ includes not only a person who has hired or availed of service but even a beneficiary of a service. The registered workers are clearly beneficiaries of the service provided by the Board in a statutory capacity. [Paras 12, 13] [191-C-E; 196-C-F; 197-A-C; 198-C-F; 199-B-H]
1.2 As a matter of interpretation, the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 must be construed in a purposive manner. Parliament has provided a salutary remedy to consumers of both goods and services. Public authorities such as the appellants who have been constituted under an enactment of Parliament are entrusted with a solemn duty of providing welfare services to registered workers. The workers who are registered with the Board make contributions on the basis of which they are entitled to avail of the services provided in terms of the schemes notified by the Board. Public accountability is a significant consideration which underlies the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The evolution of jurisprudence in relation to the enactment reflects the need to ensure a sense of public accountability by allowing consumers a redressal in the context of the discharge of non-sovereign functions which are not rendered free of charge. This test is duly met in the present case. There is no reason to interfere with the ultimate decision of the State Commission to award the claim, subject to the modification of the rate of interest by the order of the National Commission. [Paras 14, 15] [200-A-D]
Regional Provident Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi (2000) 1 SCC 98 : [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 294 ; Canara Bank v. United India Insurance Company Limited 2020 SCC Online SC 132 ; Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 615 ; Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (now GLADA) v. Vidya Chetal (2019) 9 SCC
83 : [2019] 12 SCR 516 ; National Campaign
Committee for the Central Legislation on Construction Labour v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 607 : [2018]
9 SCR 204 – relied on.
Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483 : [2009] 13 SCR 1239 ; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhawani (2008) 7 SCC 111 : [2008] 6 SCR 767 ; Ministry of Water Resources v. Shreepat Rao Kamde Decision of Supreme Court dtd. 06.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 8472 of 2019 ; Huda v. Sunita (2005) 2 SCC 479 ; Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana (2013) 10 SCC 136 : [2013] 8 SCR 77 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.