Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India adjudicated an appeal concerning whether a construction worker registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (BOCW Act) and a beneficiary of a welfare scheme is a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondent, Kesar Lal, a construction worker registered with the Rajasthan Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, applied for financial assistance of Rs 51,000 under a marriage scheme for his daughter's wedding. The Joint Labour Commissioner rejected his application along with 326 others citing technical defects such as incomplete forms and missing documents. The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which dismissed it. On appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the complaint, directing payment of Rs 51,000 with compensation and interest. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed the decision but reduced interest from 18% to 9% per annum. The appellants, the Joint Labour Commissioner and another, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent was not a 'consumer' because the welfare scheme was funded by cess (a tax) and the token contribution of Rs 60 per year was negligible, making the service gratuitous. They relied on Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha to argue that statutory functions are not 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act. The amicus curiae, Mr. PV Dinesh, contended that the respondent paid a contribution under Section 16(1) of the BOCW Act, which formed part of the Workers Welfare Fund, and thus the service was not gratuitous. The Supreme Court held that the respondent is a 'consumer' under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he paid consideration (the token contribution) for the service. The Court distinguished Bihar School Examination Board, noting that the Welfare Board is a body corporate providing services akin to a commercial entity, not a sovereign function. The Court upheld the orders of the State and National Commissions, directing the appellants to pay the awarded amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of the complaint. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Definition of Consumer - Section 2(d) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Beneficiary of Statutory Welfare Scheme - A construction worker registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, who pays a token contribution and is a beneficiary of a welfare scheme, is a 'consumer' under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The service provided by the Welfare Board is not gratuitous; the contribution, though small, constitutes consideration for the service. The Board is a service provider and the worker is a consumer entitled to seek remedies for deficiency in service. (Paras 1, 6-8, 10-12) B) Consumer Law - Service Provider - Statutory Welfare Board - The Rajasthan Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, constituted under Section 18 of the BOCW Act, 1996, is a service provider under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Board administers welfare schemes funded partly by worker contributions and partly by cess, and its functions are not sovereign but commercial in nature. (Paras 2-3, 6-8) C) Consumer Law - Deficiency in Service - Rejection of Marriage Assistance Claim - The rejection of the respondent's application for marriage assistance under the scheme on technical grounds without proper opportunity to rectify defects constitutes deficiency in service. The District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission correctly held the appellants liable for payment of Rs 51,000 with compensation and interest. (Paras 3-4, 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a construction worker registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and a beneficiary of a scheme made under the Rules is a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent is a 'consumer' under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court upheld the orders of the State Commission and National Commission directing the appellants to pay Rs 51,000 as marriage assistance, Rs 10,000 as compensation, Rs 5,000 for expenses, and interest at 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Section 2(d) - Definition of Consumer
- Building and Other Construction Workers Act
- 1996
- Welfare Scheme
- Deficiency in Service
- Statutory Welfare Board
- Token Contribution
- Quid Pro Quo
