UNION OF INDIA Vs. NILESH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the Union of India through the General Manager, Telecom, Jaipur Telecom District, Jaipur under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called 'the Act') calling in question the legality and correctness of the order dated March 17,1989 passed by the State Commission, Rajasthan dismissing a revision petition filed before it by the present petitioner as that revision petition was filed before the State Commission by the present petitioner challenging an order dated February 18,1989 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur overruling two preliminary objections raised before it by the revision petitioner in complaint Case No. 20 of 1989, which is still pending before the said District Forum. In that complaint the respondent, who is the respondent-herein had claimed certain reliefs under the Act against the action taken by the revision petitioner in serving on him two bills dated 1-6-1988 and 1-8-1988 in respect of calls said to have been made from the complainant's telephone- number-842582 with a threat of disconnection in the event of non-payment of the bills by 20-8-1989. The preliminary objections were raised before the District Forum, Jaipur by filing an application praying that the complaint should be dismissed on two grounds namely, firstly that the matter was already sub-judice before the Civil Court and secondly the complainant was not a 'consumer' and the telephone facility provided by the Telecom Department is not a "Service" as defined under the Act. Both these objections were overruled by the District Forum and the application was dismissed.

(2.) ON the matter being taken up in the revision before the State Commission by the Union of India, the State Commission has by its order now impugned before us, held that the first objection raised by the revision petitioner did not any longer survive since the Civil proceedings had already been withdrawn by the complainant. Dealing with the second objection, the State Commission held that the facility of providing a telephone on payment of installation charges, rental charges and call charges is clearly a "service" as defined in the Act and that the complainant who had hired such service for consideration is a "consumer", who is entitled to maintain a complaint petition before the District Forum.

(3.) WE see no force at all in the said contention put forward by the revision petitioner. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission that the respondent-complainant who has been provided with a telephone facility on payment of installation charges, rental charges and call charges etc. is a' consumer' and that the provision of such a facility is "service" as defined under the Act. The State Commission has set out in its order very cogent and convincing reasons in support of the conclusion reached by it and we fully endorse those reasons as perfectly valid and sound in law.