RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA vs Door -Sanchar Distt Engineer Kota

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1986'') has been filed by the appellant -complainant against the order dated 12.8.2004 passed by the learned District Forum, Kota in case No. 772/1994 by which the complaint filed by the complainant -appellant under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was dismissed holding inter alia that the complainant appellant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act of 1986.

IT may be stated here that the complainant -appellant had taken a STD/PCO booth from the respondent for doing his business. Since the complainant -appellant had some dispute with the respondent in respect of security amount and also in respect of rent, therefore, he had filed the present complaint. The learned District Forum, Kota through impugned order dated 12.8.2004 dismissed the complaint of the complainant -appellant holding inter alia that a STD/PCO holder was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act of 1986. Hence, this appeal. So far as the legal position is concerned, that has been laid down by the Honble National Commission in The General Manager, Madras Telephones and Ors. v. R. Kannan, I (1994) CPJ 14 (NC), where it has been held: ''A franchise holder is only a licensee of the grantor of the franchise for operating in this case the STD/PCO and collecting the call charges on behalf of the franchiser. It is the franchise holder who is rendering service to the grantor of the franchise inasmuch as he runs and maintains STD/PCO relieving the Telecom Department of the responsibility for providing and maintaining Public Call Offices. The franchise holder performs two functions; (a) establishes and runs a Public Call Office; and (b) collects the call charges on behalf of the department. For rendering these services to the franchiser, the franchise holder gets a commission. The mere fact that the franchise holder has been described as the hirer of the PCO does not make him a person who renders service to the Revision Petitioner, Telecom Department. Consequently, the fact that he has been described as hirer in the agreement would not mean that he is rendering a service to the telecome department for consideration. A franchise holder renders service to those who use the Public Call Office which is performed by the telecom department directly wherever there is no franchiser to manage a Public Call Office. Consequently, it is erroneous to hold in this case that the franchise holder, who is maintaining and running an STD/PCO office, is a consumer vis -a -vis the Revision Petitioner Telecom Department.''

THUS , in view of the above, an STD/PCO holder is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act of 1986 and when this being the position, the complaint was rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum.

SO far as the argument that the appellant -complainant has taken the STD/PCO booth for the purpose of earning livelihood and that purpose should not be treated as commercial purpose is concerned, in our considered opinion, when he is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act of 1986, therefore, the dispute which the complainant -appellant has raised with the respondent could not be termed as a consumer dispute. Apart from this, question of self -employment as raised by the appellant -complainant stands on different footing, especially in the cases of nature like the present one. Hence, the above argument would not be sufficient and would not come to help the appellant -complainant. For the reasons stated above, no interference is called for with the impugned order of the learned District Forum, Kota dated 12.8.2004 as it does not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality or perversity and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellant -complainant is dismissed. However, it may be observed here that both the parties appellant -complainant and respondent -Telephone Department, if so desired and deem proper, may resolve the disputes amicably. Appeal dismissed.