RAJIV GUPTA vs SENIOR MANDAL PRABANDHAK

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 12.12.1997 passed by District Forum, Basti in Complaint Case No. 468/96. The facts of the case are as under ;

THAT on 21.3.1996 a notice was published in news paper ''Danik Jagran'' from the side of Bharat Petroleum that land from 169 to 194 milage between Basti and Faizabad has been taken by Company, on lease for establishing an outlet. It was also mentioned in the advertisement that a dealer is to be appointed for running retail outlet of the Company of Petrol Pump for which applications be submitted. Complainant No. 1 Sri Rajiv Gupta sent his application on the basis of this advertisement but the same was returned on the ground that it was received late on 6.5.1996 i.e. after expiry of date of submission the form. The complaint was filed in this case on the ground that the application of the complainant No. 1 was not considered and he was deprived of his right.

In the written reply, it was stated by the opposite party that complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable.

THE learned District Forum, after considering the case, came to the findings that complainant is not a consumer and complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved from this order, the complainant has come up with an appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

WE have heard appellant No. 1 who was present in person. In Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act the definition of consumer has been given according to which if a person takes the service of another person on hire then the person whose services are hired, will be a consumer. In the present case, we find that the services were not hired but appellants have merely applied for being appointed as a dealer of Petrol Pump on behalf of the opposite party. Publication of notice in the news paper ''Danik Jagran'' was merely an invitation for inviting applications for dealership. A selection was to be made by the opposite party as to who should be appointed as a dealer of the said Petrol Pump. In the present case, no services were hired of the complainant and as such he cannot be deemed to be a consumer. The submission of demand draft of Rs. 50/- cannot be said to have been paid for hiring the services. This was the initial fee to meet the administrative expenses for processing the application of various persons.

THE learned District Forum has dealt in detail this aspect of the case. In view of the facts and after considering the definition of consumer it is held that the complainant is not a consumer. Hence, he cannot file the complaint. 11 .We do not find any flaw in the judgment of the District Forum by which it was held that the appellant is not a consumer and his complaint was rightly dismissed. ORDER 12. THE appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned District Forum, Basti is confirmed. Let the copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rule. Appeal dismissed.