- (1.) BY this revision petition under section 17 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) (which for the sake of convenience be hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed by the Union of India through General Manager, Tele-communications, Jaipur Tele-communications, District Jaipur against the order dated February 18, 1989 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 20 of 1989.
(2.) THE petitioner is the opposite party in the complaint so hereinafter reference to the petitioner in this revision will be as opposite party. Non-petitioner No. 1 will be referred as the complainant. The complainant (non-petitioner in revision) submitted a complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur averring that telephone No. 842582 was installed at his commercial establishment and that he was having telephone connection since 1984. There were excess charges in the telephone bills on account of STD and so STD was got disconnected. Thereafter the complainant received bills which ranged from Rs. 51/- to a few hundreds. The complainant has stated that on 1-6-88 the complainant received a bill for Rs. 3375/- and on 1-8-88 he received a bill for Rs. 7235/ -. An application was submitted by the complainant for correcting the bill on receipt of bill dated 1-6-88. . He was informed that the bill was correct and there was nothing wrong in the meter. On receipt of the second bill on 1-8-88 the complainant again wrote to the Telecom Department. However, it informed the complainant that Rs. 7779/- should be deposited by 20-1-89. The complainant filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Munsif-Magistrate No. 2 Jaipur City for declaration that the bill is wrong. A order was passed by the Court that the complainant should deposit the amount of Rs. 7235/- under protest and if it is so done the connection may be restored which was disconnected on January 30, 1989. The complainant was not satisfied with the order of Munsif-Magistrate No. 2 Jaipur city and so he filed an appeal which was transferred to the Additional District Judge No. 3 Jaipur City. A complaint was also filed before the District Forum, Jaipur. A notice was issued to the opposite party. An application was filed by the opposite party before the District Forum on 17-2-89 stating that as civil proceedings are pending, so the complaint could not be filed in view of S. 10 C. P. C. and that the telephone facility provided to the complainant is not a service and the subscriber of the telephone is not a consumer and as such the complaint is not maintainable and it should be dismissed. The application filed by the opposite party raising the aforesaid objections was resisted by the complainant by filing a reply. The District Forum heard the arguments and by order dated 18-2-89 rejected the objections raised on behalf of the opposite party and dismissed the application. Hence this revision as aforesaid. The District Forum, Jaipur has been arrayed as non-petitioner No. 2 in the revision petition. Notice was issued to it but no appearance has been put in on its behalf. . We have heard Mr. N. C. Choudhary Advocate for the opposite party (petitioner in revision) and Mr. Satish Chandra Purohit for non-petitioner No. 1 (complainant) and have also carefully considered the record. It is not necessary to examine the question about the stay of the proceedings of the complaint under S. 10 C. P. C. for the simple reason that the learned counsel for the complainant had assured the District Forum Jaipur that he would immediately withdraw the Civil Appeal and Civil Suit from both the Courts and as such the District Forum was of the opinion that there was no objection in entertaining the complaint. Mr. Satish Chandra Purohit informed us that the appeal and the suit have already been withdrawn.
(3.) THE only question involved in this revision is whether the District Forum Jaipur was right in holding that the telephone facility provided by the Telecom Department is a "service" as envisaged by the Act and as such the District Forum had/has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the opposite party which was filed by the complainant who is a consumer of the Telecom Department. We do not consider it necessary to go into the letters referred to by the District Forum for the simple reason that we are called upon to determine whether the complaint filed by the complainant against the Telecom Department is maintainable under the Act and the District Forum had has jurisdiction to redress the grievances of the complainant. "complainant" has been defined in section 2 (l) (b) of the Act. Amongst others, complainant means a consumer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines "complaint". It inter alia, means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect. The material part of the definition of "consumer" contained in section 2 (l) (d) of the Act is as follows : - (d) "consumer" means any person who, - (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person;" ;