Summary
The Supreme Court held that a registered construction-worker beneficiary making statutory contributions could invoke consumer remedies for deficiency in welfare-board services. The services were not gratuitous merely because contributions were small and the schemes were mainly financed by cess. Performing a statutory welfare function did not itself confer sovereign immunity. The Court upheld the marriage-assistance award, compensation and expenses with interest as reduced by the National Commission.
Issues
- Whether a contributing beneficiary of the construction-workers welfare scheme was a consumer.
- Whether cess financing and the small contribution made the Board’s services free or excluded consumer jurisdiction.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(1)(d)(ii), with Explanation, Consumer Protection Act, 1986Includes service beneficiaries; the registered contributing worker qualified as a consumer. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The welfare services were not free of charge and did not fall within the gratuitous-services exclusion. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- Sections 11, 16 and 22, Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996The registered worker’s contribution and entitlement to the Board’s welfare benefits established the relevant service relationship. (¶ 13)
Held
- The consumer definition extends beyond the person directly hiring a service to its beneficiary within the statutory terms. Statutory obligations are not all sovereign functions; consumer jurisdiction requires examination of the actual service and the Act’s ingredients. (¶ 12)
- Registered beneficiaries contributed to the welfare fund, which financed the Board’s statutory functions and schemes alongside other receipts. The services were therefore not rendered free of charge. The contribution need not cover the full cost of the benefit or scheme. (¶ 13)
- A meagre contribution or substantial financing from cess did not eliminate the worker’s consumer status. Purposive interpretation and public accountability supported redress for deficient non-sovereign welfare services supplied on that contributory basis. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- There was no basis to disturb the awarded claim, subject to the National Commission’s reduction of interest to nine per cent. (¶¶ 4, 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed with no costs; award of Rs 51,000 assistance, Rs 10,000 compensation and Rs 5,000 expenses, with interest reduced to 9% per annum by the National Commission, upheld.