AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6.5.1999 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh partly allowing appeal filed by the petitioners/opposite parties against the order dated 5.11.1998 of a District Forum. District Forum had directed the petitioners to restore PCO connection to the respondent/complainant and pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation in appeal, compensation of Rs. 5,000 was waived off.
RESPONDENT who was running an STD/PCO vide SPT No. 41862 filed a complaint against the petitioner. The prayer clause of complaint is reproduced below : "It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be summoned and directed- (i) to withdraw the notice No. P-2 STD/PCO/SPT/17/11 dated 6/12.5.1998 and treat it null and void being withdrawn. (ii) Not to disconnect the account of STD/PCO, etc. detailed above. (iii) To pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 for causing mental agony, torture, humiliation by the respondents to the complainant due to deficient service rendered by the respondents. (iv) The cost of proceedings."
Complaint was contested by the petitioners by filing written version. It was alleged that respondent was permitted to run PCO under the agreement dated 24.1.1994 and as per Clause 30 of that agreement, the dispute raised is triable by the Arbitrator. It was further alleged that under this agreement, the respondent is only a licensee and the consumer Forum, thus, did not have jurisdiction to entertain complaint.
Contention advanced by Mr. K.R. Sachdeva for petitioners was that respondent being not a consumer, the complaint itself was not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) and despite such a plea being raised the District Forum and State Commission did not consider it, our attention was invited to para No. 1 of the preliminary objections and para Nos. 1 and 9 of the reply on merit of the written version as also para No. 2 of the Memo of Appeal placed on the file. Reliance was also placed on the decision in General Manager, Madras Telephones and Ors. v. R. Kannan, I (1994) CPJ 14 (NC)=1994 (1) Consumer Protection Reporter 718. Copy of aforesaid agreement dated 24.1.1994 executed between the parties is placed at pp 20-23. Bare perusal thereof would show that respondent was only a licensee of the petitioners for operating the PCO and collecting call charges on behalf of petitioners. Further, perusal of aforesaid paras of written version and Memo of Appeal would indicate that plea of respondent, being only a licensee under the said agreement, was specifically raised therein by the petitioners. However, that plea was not at all examined either by the District Forum or State Commission. Taking note of the ratio in R. Kannan''s case (supra), the complaint itself was not maintainable, the respondent not being a ''consumer'' under the Act. Orders passed by Fora below, thus, deserve to be set aside being legally erroneous.
ACCORDINGLY, while allowing revision, orders passed by Fora below are set aside and complaint dismissed. No order as to cost. Revision Petition allowed.