RAJ SINGH vs Union of India

-THE complainant applied for providing Village Public Telephone which was sanctioned by the OPs as Panchayat PCO No. 72188 in the year 1994. The telephone was granted under the policy of Government of India vide No. 3-91/90-RD (Vol-II) dated 5. 10. 94 and commission of 20% was ordered to be granted on the actual revenue collected from the said PCO. Later on the above stated telephone which was working in village Satrarian, Tehsil R. S. Pura was converted as STD/pco and this information was conveyed to the OPs vide letter No. JT/p17/99/95/std/pco dated 28. 11. 94. The complainant has claimed enhanced commission from the OPs @ 50%. The total claim in the sum of Rs. 26,65,120 has been claimed as rebates commencing from 1. 1. 1996 to 1. 1. 2004 along with compensation of Rs. 2. 00 lakh for torture and harassment and litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 25,000. The 50% increase has been claimed as per the circular and policy of Government of India from 1. 1. 1996.

THE OPs have raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint herein on the plea that he is not a "consumer" within the definition of Section 2 (d) of Jandk Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). It is pleaded that he is a franchise holder who is rendering the service to the granter of the franchise by performing two functions: (a) establishing and running the Public Call Offices, and (b) collecting the call charges on behalf of the department i. e. OPs. For rendering these services to the franchiser (OPs herein) the complainant (franchise holder) is getting the commission. The complainant renders services to those who use the Public Call Office which is performed by the OPs directly wherever there is no franchise to manage a call office. The arguments of the Counsel for the parties were heard on this preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the complaint. In support of the objections raised by the Counsel of the OPs he cited the case of The General Manager, Madras Telephones and Ors. v. R. Kannan, I (1994) CPJ 14 (NC ). The learned Counsel appearing for the complainant sought some time to produce law in rebuttal within two days but has failed to produce any. It is thus presumed that he has nothing to say on this legal aspect of the case.

We have thoughtfully considered the submission made by the learned Counsel of the OPs and find that the law cited by him laid down in the case of The General Manager, Madras Telephones and Others (supra), applies in all fours to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, it is held that the complainant is not a "consumer" within the definition of Section 2 (d) of the Act and this complaint is not maintainable which is dismissed but without any cost. The complainant if so advised can seek redressal of his claim in a competent Forum in accordance with the relevant law. Complaint dismissed.