MELA RAM SARAN-/ vs GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM-/

MR. S.S. Dewan, President - The present appellant, who is complainant before the District Forum, Jalandhar, has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act'') against the order dated 11.8.1992 in Complaint Case No. 155-DP of 1992, by which his Complaint has been dismissed on the ground that he is not a ''Consumer'' under the Act.

THE facts are not in dispute and these are noticed with brevity. THE complainant, who is a proprietorship firm through its proprietor Shri Ram Sa ran Dass, had applied for a telephone connection under "Non OYT Special Category'' in the month of November 1989 and on the receipt of the demand notice having been received by the Telephone Department, he deposited Rs. 1,000/- with its cashier on 21.11.1989 and thereafter according to the seniority list, Registration No. 3386 was allotted to the complainant. However, for well-nigh two years despite repeated representations to the Telephone Department, no action was taken to the grave harassment of the complainant. Consequently, he was compelled to knock at the door of the District Forum, Jalandhar. THE District Forum vide its order dated 11.8.1992 dismissed the complaint, while observing in the following terms: - " This complaint has been filed by M/s. Mela Ram Saran, Mandi Road. Krishna Nagar, Jalandhar, through its proprietor Ram Saran Dass, with the allegations that the General Manager, Department of Telecommunication, Jalandhar, is not providing telephone against seniority No. MAX-2/NON OYT/SPECIAL (SSI)/3386 dt. 21.11.1989. THE contention of the learned Counsel is that the complainant had deposited the requisite amount in compliance of the demand notice issued to him by the respondent. However, we are of the view that mere deposit of the amount in compliance with the demand notice does not make the complainant ''consumer''. Once a person is not covered by the definition of the ''consumer'', he has no locus standi to file a complaint before this Forum. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed." The impugned order appears to have been passed by the District Forum under some misapprehensions of the true import of the definition of the ''consumer'' under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. It is somewhat patent that the present case is not in any way one of purchase or sale of goods for a consideration. The present case is clearly one of hiring of services for consideration, which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant, who had applied for the telephone connection and deposited the required fee of Rs. 1,000/- on the asking of the Telephone Department, will certainly fall within the definition of ''consumer'' and he can invoke the provisions of the Act in the event of his feeling aggrieved by any action of the Department. In this view we are fortified by the decision of the National Commission in Union of India through Genera Manager, Telecom, Jaipur v. Nilesh Aggarwal, Jaipur1 Revision Petition No. 1 of 1989 decided on 14.9.1989.

In the circumstances we are unable to uphold the view expressed by the District Forum that the complainant-appellant, who is an applicant for telephone connection is not a ''consumer'' and he is not entitled to seek redressal from the District Forum under the Act. Once it is held so, the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum in the order under appeal has to be reversed. The appeal has, therefore, to be allowed. As already noticed, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the preliminary ground that the complainant is not a consumer and, therefore, had not adjudicated on the facts at all. Consequently, the matter is now remanded back to the District Forum, Jalandhar, for trial of the complaint on merits in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. _______________