JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The ambit and confines of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (the Forum), under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), is called into question in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner says that Ext.P5 order issued by the Forum, Kannur is completely incompetent and without jurisdiction because what has been alleged by respondents 2 and 3 herein, the petitioner before the Forum, was that the petitioner had violated an agreement between them for slaughter tapping of 97 rubber trees owned by him. According to the petitioner, by an agreement dated 25.07.2005, he had authorised respondents 2 and 3 herein, to tap 97 of the rubber trees owned by him and then to cut and remove them for a total consideration of Rs. 1,12,500/-. He admits that he had received an amount of Rs. 52,500/- on three occasions as he advanced and that he had thus allowed respondents 2 and 3 to commence and continue with the work. However, on the allegation that, the rubber trees were useless and unworthy. Respondents 2 and 3 demanded from the petitioner that he refunded the amount of Rs. 52,500/- with 12% interest. When the petitioner did not accede to this, respondents 2 and 3 moved the Forum with a complaint. 3. Before the Forum, the petitioner took a specific contention that the complaint is not maintainable, since what is alleged by respondents 2 and 3 herein, is a breach of an agreement, against which certain civil cases were also pending. The Forum, however, through its majority, overruled his objection, with one of the members dissenting, and went on to hold that the petitioner was guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It is against this order that the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. M. Ramesh Chander assisted by Sri. Bonny Benny and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 5. The order impugned in this writ petition viz. Ext.P5 narrates the case of the complainant. It is obvious that what is complained by respondents 2 and 3 is a violation of the agreement, dated 25.07.2005, entered into by respondents 2 and 3 herein with the petitioner for slaughter tapping of 97 rubber trees that was standing in the property belonging to the latter. Ext.P5 narrates the case of the complainant. It is obvious that what is complained by respondents 2 and 3 is a violation of the agreement, dated 25.07.2005, entered into by respondents 2 and 3 herein with the petitioner for slaughter tapping of 97 rubber trees that was standing in the property belonging to the latter. The allegation made by respondents 2 and 3 is that the rubber trees were useless and unworthy and therefore, that the petitioner was guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 6. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines Consumer in sub-clause (d) of Section 2 as under: (d) “consumer” means any person who:- (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. (ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Thereafter, proceeds to define deficiency in sub-clause (g) of Section 2 as under: (g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The concept of 'unfair trade practice' is defined in sub-clause (r) of Section 2 as under: (r) “unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:- (1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which:- (i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model. (ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade. (iii) falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, reconditioned or old goods as new goods. (iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have. (v) represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have. (vi) make a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services. (vii) gives to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on an adequate or proper test thereof: Provided that where a defence is raised to the effect that such warranty or guarantee is based on adequate or proper test, the burden of proof of such defence shall lie on the person raising such defence: (viii) makes to the public a representation in a form that purports to be— (i) a warranty or guarantee of a product or of any goods or services. (ii) a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result, if such purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that such warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out. (ii) a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result, if such purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that such warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out. (ix) materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or goods or services, have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided, and, for this purpose, a representation as to price shall be deemed to refer to the price at which the product or goods or services has or have been sold by sellers or provided by suppliers generally in the relevant market unless it is clearly specified to be the price at which the product has been sold or services have been provided by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is made. (x) gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (1) a statement that is:- (a) expressed on an article offered or displayed for sale, or on its wrapper or container. (b) expressed on anything attached to, inserted in, or accompanying, an article offered or displayed for sale, or on anything on which the article is mounted for display or sale. (c) contained in or on anything that is sold, sent, delivered, transmitted or in any other manner whatsoever made available to a member of the public, shall be deemed to be a statement made to the public by, and only by, the person who had caused the statement to be so expressed, made or contained. (2) permits the publication of any advertisement whether in any newspaper or otherwise, for the sale or supply at a bargain price, of goods or services that are not intended to be offered for sale or supply at the bargain price, or for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable, having regard to the nature of the market in which the business is carried on, the nature and size of business and the nature of the advertisement. Explanation.—For the purpose of clause (2) “bargaining price” means:- (a) a price that is stated in any advertisement to be a bargain price, by reference to an ordinary price or otherwise. Explanation.—For the purpose of clause (2) “bargaining price” means:- (a) a price that is stated in any advertisement to be a bargain price, by reference to an ordinary price or otherwise. (b) a price that a person who reads, hears or sees the advertisement, would reasonably understand to be a bargain price having regard to the prices at which the product advertised or like products are ordinarily sold. (3) permits:- (a) the offering of gifts, prizes or other items with the intention of not providing them as offered or creating impression that something is being given or offered free of charge when it is fully or partly covered by the amount charged in the transaction as a whole. (b) the conduct of any contest, lottery, game of chance or skill, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the sale, use or supply of any product or any business interest. (3A) withholding from the participants of any scheme offering gifts, prizes or other items free of charge, on its closure the information about final results of the scheme. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-clause, the participants of a scheme shall be deemed to have been informed on the final results of the scheme where such results are within a reasonable time published, prominently in the same newspapers in which the scheme was originally advertised. (4) permits the sale or supply of goods intended to be used, or are of a kind likely to be used, by consumers, knowing or having reason to believe that the goods do not comply with the standards prescribed by competent authority relating to performance, composition, contents, design, constructions, finishing or packaging as are necessary to prevent or reduce the risk of injury to the person using the goods. (5) permits the hoarding or destruction of goods, or refuses to sell the goods or to make them available for sale or to provide any service, if such hoarding or destruction or refusal raises or tends to raise or is intended to raise, the cost of those or other similar goods or services. (6) manufacture of spurious goods or offering such goods for sale or adopting deceptive practices in the provision of services. 7. (6) manufacture of spurious goods or offering such goods for sale or adopting deceptive practices in the provision of services. 7. The question before this Court is whether, going by the complaint made by respondents 2 and 3 before the Forum, the ingredients of either unfair trade practice or deficiency in service would be attracted. The definitions of these terms are very specific in the Act and therefore, my analysis will have to be confined as to whether the alleged violation and infraction by the petitioner would give the jurisdiction to consider the complaint. 8. As indicated above, the specific complaint of respondents 2 and 3 is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for slaughter tapping 97 rubber trees with them on 25.07.2005 knowing that the said trees were useless and unworthy. It is, on such specific allegation that, the complaint has preferred before the Tribunal. What essentially, therefore, presents in the complaint is of violation of the alleged covenant of assurance of quality entered into between the parties, because according to respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner made then believe through his representation to them that the trees were suitable for slaughter tapping. I am afraid, this amounts, at the best, to a violation of the covenant of the agreement relating to the quality of the trees and by no stretch of imagination would amount to an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service going by the definitions, extracted above. 9. The proper remedy for respondents 2 and 3, obviously, was to file a suit before a court of competent jurisdiction either for damages or for such other appropriate relief rather than approaching the Forum by making a complaint. In fact, what is pertinent is that the dissent note made by one of the members of the Forum would also show on these lines, however, since the majority of the members in the Forum took a different view, Ext.P5 order was passed. 10. It is also pertinent that with respect to the agreement in question, the petitioner had filed two suits viz. O.S. No. 196 of 2007, for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the 2nd respondent and O.S. No. 263 of 2007, against respondents 2 and 3 seeking damages for the violation of the agreement by them. 10. It is also pertinent that with respect to the agreement in question, the petitioner had filed two suits viz. O.S. No. 196 of 2007, for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the 2nd respondent and O.S. No. 263 of 2007, against respondents 2 and 3 seeking damages for the violation of the agreement by them. These suits were decreed by the court below, by a judgment dated 26.11.2009, which is concededly much before the complaint was preferred by respondents 2 and 3 before the Forum, injuncting respondents 2 and 3 herein, from either entering into the property or causing any damage therein and further directing the 2nd respondent herein, to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the petitioner as damages. When the suits were so decreed, it would have been completely impermissible for respondents 2 and 3 to have moved the Forum with a complaint, especially when even according to their version, they had invoked the appellate jurisdiction against the decree and judgment of the court below. This, in my view, is an abuse of process of court and the complaint ought not to have been, therefore, entertained by the Forum. The Forum, in my firm view, has erred egregiously in entertaining the complaint and in issuing Ext.P5 order, which is without jurisdiction and therefore, unlawful. 11. In view of the above, I am compelled, being with no other option, to allow this writ petition, quashing Ext.P5 order of the Forum, Kannur, holding that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, especially when the civil suits had been decreed against respondents 2 and 3. 12. The writ petition is allowed as above.