Dealers from now will be treated like consumers.

In a recent landmark judgment, the state consumer disputes redressal commission has directed a multinational white goods manufacturer to pay compensation to a dealer and continue supply of goods, which the company had stopped.

By awarding the verdict earlier this month, Moloy Basu, president of the forum, has virtually opened the floodgates for thousands of youths to venture into trade with loans from various government schemes.

These dealers of public sector undertakings can now also approach consumer courts in case of any dispute with the parent company.

Rina Roy started a business in the sale and repair of electronic goods and for this purpose, took a loan of Rs 95,000 from a nationalised bank under the Prime Minister’s Rojgar Yojana (PMRY) scheme.

Before the loan was sanctioned, she applied to the multinational company for a dealership. The company informed her she would have to deposit a sum of Rs 1 lakh. Only after depositing the money, Roy was appointed a dealer of the company.

The business ran smoothly for some time, but later, Roy alleged that the company suddenly stopped supplying goods to her.

She approached the bank concerned, which requested the company to resume supplying goods.

However, the company turned down the request and Roy approached the district magistrate of Nadia. The magistrate, in turn, wrote to the company, but to no avail.

Soon after, the company informed Roy that there was a change of policy and she would have to source the goods through a distributor.

Roy told the commission that she suffered substantial losses due to the supply cut.

The bank also filed a suit against her for realisation of the loan amount. Since she took the loan under the PMRY scheme, she had to surrender her employment exchange card and could not apply for jobs.

Roy claimed she had engaged two rooms for the business and was deprived of earning by letting those rooms out on rent.

According to the verdict, although the contestant company said Roy was not a consumer at all, since she purchased goods for commercial purposes, it was not applicable in this case.

“The complainant was running this business by way of self-employment and earning her livelihood. Therefore, under the definition of the word ‘consumer’, as provided for under the Consumer Protection Act, she becomes a consumer although her purpose for purchasing the materials from the party was commercial,” Basu said in the judgment.

The commission also directed the company to arrange for regular supply of goods to Roy through its distributor and pay a compensation of Rs 5,000 to her.