(1.) The complainant's case is that he applied for a PCO Connection on 31.12.1997. It was sanctioned on 19.2.1999. The complainant paid the deposit of Rs.1,000/- on 15.7.1999. An order was passed on 18.1.2000 to provide the PCO and directed the complainant to contact the 2nd opposite party. The complainant observed all the necessary formalities. Still the PCO has not been provided. The complainant issued a legal notice. There is no response. Hence there is deficiency in service. The complainant prays for damages accordingly.
(2.) The opposite parties filed their objections pleading as follows : The complainant is not a consumer. It has been held by the National Commission that a franchise holder as the hirer of PCO is not a consumer. The complainant applied for local PCO to be installed at Vanian Chathram, Alamathi Post, Ambedkar Nagar, Chennai-52. Provisional sanction was accorded on 19.2.1999. It was granted subject to certain conditions. The complainant submitted the documents as advised and paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- as deposit. The executive authorities of the Red Hills Exechange, on receipt of the advice, inspected the address of the complainant and found that the complainant was not served by the Chennai Telephones and it was beyond the jurisdiction of Red Hills Exchange area. Hence they cancelled the advice notice and intimated the same to the complainant and asked him to contract the Commercial Officer of the opposite parties for further action. The complainant did not approach the Commercial Officer but has filed this complaint. The PCO could not be provided to the complainant as his address was beyond the jurisdiction of Red Hills Exchange and, therefore, he was advised to contract the Telephone Department authorities at Thiruvallur District. The complainant is not a consumer. There is no deficiency in service.
(3.) The lower Forum passed an order directing the opposite parties to give a new PCO service connection to the complainant within a period of one month. Hence the appeal.