ANITA MEENA vs BSNL

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against order dated 3.3.2003 passed by the District Forum, Jhalawar by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed inter alia holding that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE case of the complainant appellant was that she was a holder of PCO from the respondents and she had installed that PCO in her village Chomahla in District Jhalawar. THE further case of the appellant was that she had taken the services of the PCO from the respondents as she was an unemployed youth and it was only source of her livelihood. It was further stated in the complaint that PCO number was 44460 and the respondents had sent a bill of Rs. 8,860 for the period from 1.6.2002 to 15.6.2002 and according to the complainant that was not a proper bill and for quashing that bill the complaint was filed.

A reply was filed by the respondents that the appellant was not a consumer.

THE District Forum had dismissed the complaint through impugned order dated 3.3.2003 holding that a person who has a PCO is not a consumer. Aggrieved from that order this appeal has been filed.

IN our considered opinion the complaint was rightly dismissed as the person at whose request a PCO telephone is installed cannot be called a consumer as envisaged by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986, as he had not hired the services of the Telephone Department. In the case of General Manager, Madras Telephones v. R. Kannan, I (1994) CPJ 14 (NC)=(1994) I CPR 718 (NC), a question before the National Commission was whether a franchise holder is a consumer within the meaning of the term defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not and the National Commission came to the conclusion that it is erroneous to hold that the franchise holder, who is maintaining a running STD/PCO office is a consumer. The same view was re-affirmed by the National Commission in the case of Union of India v. Ramesh Kumar, III (1995) CPJ 67 (NC)=(1995) III CPR 453 (NC). Thus we hold that a STD/PCO holder is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

IN view of the above the complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Forum. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned order passed by the District Forum.

ACCORDINGLY the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.