Ashish Yadav vs Gaurav Prasad And Ors.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that he is a cable operator and he has filed a complaint against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 who are the distributors of the opposite party No. 1 -Star India Limited and they distribute channels to him. The complainant, who is the petitioner before us in turn helps the consumers on payment of certain monthly fee to see the channels of Star India. In short, he is the re -seller of the services provided by opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3, ultimately to the consumers. He further submits that he is basically a franchisee holder of the three respondents who were the opposite parties before the District Forum. Hence it appears that the petitioner is not a consumer eligible to file a complaint before the District Forum.

THE President of the UP. State Commission in his concurrent judgment with a Member of the State Commission has mentioned as follows: "Having regard to all what has been discussed above, I am of the decisive opinion that the impugned order was absolutely illegal and passed without jurisdiction. It, therefore, deserves to be quashed with the finding that the complaint is not at all maintainable as no consumer dispute'' is involved. Therefore, a direction for the Forum below to decide the complaint on merit too would be wrong and misconceived".

COUNSEL for the petitioner drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court - Punj Lyyod Limited v. Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd., I (2009) CPJ 10 (SC)=I (2009) SLT 278=2008 SCALE 916. In Para 15 of the same it has been observed as follows: "...... In view of our discussions made hereinabove and relying on the principles enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are, therefore, of the view that the Commission was not justified in rejecting the complaint by merely stating that the complicated nature of facts and law did not warrant any decision on its part before even issuing notice to the respondent and directing the filing of his defence, which, in our opinion, cannot be said to be decisive."

This judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner involves the issue of raising complicated questions of law and facts and whether they should be determined by the Civil Court or Consumer Forum. Hence the judgment collected by the learned Counsel is not relevant to the case on hand. Similarly, the Hon''ble Apex Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant and Ors. v. Srinath Chaturvedi, III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2002) SLT 714=(2002) 6 SCC 635, it was held that consumer Fora can decide matters even if complicated questions of law and facts are involved.

BUT the issue involved in the case on hand is entirely different. It is whether the complainant is a consumer?

EVEN in the revision petition, he has mentioned that the revision petitioner/complainant is running a cable company in the name and style of Prime Cable Network in the District of Muzaffarnagar, U.P. The complainant company has obtained franchise of the respondent No. 3 - Star India Private Limited to telecast various channels in its area. In the agreement between Star India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Prime Cable Network, Muzaffarnagar, it is mentioned that Prime Cable Network is an affiliate, which shall mean a multi -system operator including its agent or intermediary and/or, a cable operator who distributes, inter alia, satellite television channels via the Distribution System and shall also include link -operators and sub -operators of such multi -system operator and/or cable operator. Therefore, it is very clear that the subsisting dispute between the two parties i.e. the complainant and Star India Pvt. Ltd. is not between a service provider and a consumer, but, rather it is between two service providers.

ACCORDINGL Y , we come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner is not a consumer but a service provider to several consumers. Therefore, he is not eligible to file a complaint before the District Forum. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. R.P. dismissed.