RAGHUNATH SHARMA Vs. S D O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30.12.1995 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jharsuguda (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' in short) in C.D. Case No. 24/148 T/95 in which the complaint petition filed by the complainant was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the said dismissal order of the Forum below, the complainant as appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) THE case of the complainant stated in brief is that he is running a 'Pay Phone Booth' at Brajarajnagar in the district of Jharsuguda, Orissa bearing Telephone No. 42575. It is his contention that since commencement of the said booth from December, 1993 he had been paying the fortnight telephone bills in respect of his pay phone booth without any default. But surprisingly on 1.8.1995 the telephone department disconnected the line for none of his fault. On his personal contact, the telephone was restored on 17.8.1995 at evening. So he alleges that the disconnection of his telephone affected his prestige and goodwill. On these allegations, he filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation Rs. 500 for each day of disconnection towards the loss incurred by him along with compensation of Rs. 10,000 for loss of his prestige and goodwill. Being noticed, the opposite parties (present respondents) appeared in the District Forum and filed their written version in which they had taken the stand that the complainant is not a consumer as the pay phone is a commercial transaction on contractual agreement as such the consumer dispute case filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the Consumer Forum. After hearing both the parties the District Forum held that Pay Phone operators are the agents of the telephone department for providing smooth service to the consumers. So, an agent cannot be treated as a consumer vis -a -vis his principal. The District Forum has also held that the complainant was operating pay phone for commercial basis. His claim of loss of Rs. 500 daily proves that he was operating the phone on profit motive basis and not for just earning his livelihood. He is not coming under the definition of 'consumer' as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. Being aggrieved with the said order, the complainant as appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) THIS Commission has also on earlier occasion hold similar view while passing order in C.D. Appeal No. 174/94 disposed of on 26.5.1995 in the case of The Telecom District Engineer, Bolangir v. Amar Kumar Patra.