MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. GIRVAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition against the order passed by the State Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. 755/2005 whereby the State Commission, without issuing notice to the petitioner, has reversed the order passed by the District Forum and remanded the case to the District Forum for a fresh decision taking the respondent to be a 'Consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(l)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Petitioner gave a franchisee to the respondent to run a PCO, which was numbered as PCO CCB No. 23647099 under an agreement entered between them. Respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000 as security. Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum with the allegation that inspite of the fact that the CCB remained defective for two months, petitioner had sent a bill of Rs. 5,950 which the respondent did not deposit; that the petitioner had disconnected the CCB withoutany justification. He prayed for compensation and relaxation for payment of bills.

(3.) On being served, petitioner put in appearance and contested the case. According to the petitioner, the complaint was not maintainable as the respondent was not a 'Consumer' as he did not fall within the definition of 'Consumer' under Section 2(l)(d) of the Act; that the respondent was running the PCO for commercial purposes and is a franchisee of the petitioner; that he took commission on the amount collected; that whenever a complaint was received that the CCB/PCO No. 23647099 was not running properly, the same was attended to and the CCB was set right. Petitioner prayed that the complaint be dismissed as not maintainable.