District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
Surya Sen Sarani Municipal Building, 1st Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin – 733101.
Telefax: 03522-270013
Present
Sri B. Niyogi – President
Sri S. K. Ghosh – Member
Miss. Swapna Saha – Member
Consumer Complaint No. 31/2009
Smt. Sulagna Biswas
W/o Ashish Biswas
Congress Para
P.O & P.S. Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.………………………………Complainant
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The S.D.O.T.
B.S.N.L. Dakshin Dinajpur,
P.O. & P.S. Balurghat,
Dist-Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. The Accounts Officer (TRA)
Office at J.M.T. Raiganj,
P.O. Karnajora, P.S. Raiganj,
Dist-Uttar Dinajpur ………………………Opposite Parties
Order No.4 dt. 14.09.2009
The case record is taken up for order on point of admission of the complaint.
Such complaint, purported to be one u/s 12 CP Act, has been brought by one Smt. Sulagna Biswas on 27.8.2009 against the officials of BSNL alleging deficiency in service.
Shorn of details the complainant’s case as made out in the said complaint is that she for the purpose of engaging herself in a job aiming at earnings, intended to run a PCO Telephone Booth and made payment of an amount of Rs.5,800/- to the Telecom Department on 16.2.2009 by way of security deposit and installation charge of the machine. Concerned machine was not provided to the complainant. In the middle of October 2008 the complainant was informed that the deposit made by her earlier would be refunded back and that she should have to submit an application therefor. The complainant submitted the application seeking refund of the amount on 22.10.2008. The amount has not been refunded back yet on one pretext or the other. In such premises the complainant brought the complaint praying for obtaining refund of the amount together with interest and compensation.
In support of her complaint the complainant filed copy of a receipt of the payment made by her and that of her application dt. 22.10.2008 addressed to the OP 2 praying for refund of the amount.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant on 9.9.2009 on point of admission of the complaint and have taken into consideration the submissions advanced by him.
Here the complaint has been brought by an individual and not by any Consumer Association or Govt. Having kept in view the definition of the term “consumer” enjoined in Sec. 2(1)(b) CP Act, it can safely said that the complaint can be allowed to be proceeded with in the event it can be regarded beside others, that the complainant has been a “consumer” contemplated in Sec. 2(1)(d) of the CP Act.
In course of hearing it was urged by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant that as the complainant made payment of a sum of money to the Telecom Department for the opening of the PCO Booth she has to be regarded to have paid consideration for hiring of service and thus to have become a consumer.
Whether the holder of a PCO Booth can be regarded to be a consumer within the meaning of CP Act came up for consideration before the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of the General Manager, Madras Telephones and Ors. – vs – R. Kannan reported in 1986-94 Consumer 983 (NS)
The Hon’ble National Commission observed therein that the holder of a PCO Booth is, in fact, a franchise holder – a licencee of the grantor of the franchise for operating the Public Call Office and collecting call charges on behalf of the franchiser. The Hon’ble National Commission went on to
observe therein that the franchise holder renders service to the grantor of the franchise in as much as he/she runs and maintains the PCO relieving the Telecom Department of the responsibility of providing and maintaining the Public Call Offices and that such franchise holder performs two functions (1) establishes and runs a Public Call Office and (2) collects the call charges on behalf of the Department and that for rendering this service to the franchiser the franchise holder gets a commission.
It has further been observed therein that it is erroneous to hold that the franchise holder who is maintaining and running a PCO is a consumer vis-à-vis the Telecom Department.
In view of the said observation of the Hon’ble National Commission the present complainant cannot be regarded to have been a consumer in relation to the Telecom Department or in relation to the OPs who are, in fact, officials of the Telecom Department.
The complaint brought by the complainant, therefore, cannot be allowed to be proceeded with in this Forum under the CP Act. Such complaint thus warrants rejection in term of Subsec. (3) of Sec. 12 of the CP Act.
Accordingly, it is.
O R D E R E D
That the petition of complaint purported to be one u/s 12, CP Act brought by Smt. Sulagna Biswas on 27.8.2009 stands rejected in terms of Subsec (3) of Sec. 12 of the CP Act.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the complainant forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
……………………….
(B. Niyogi)
President
We concur
…………………………….
(Swapna Saha)
Member
…………………………….
(S.K. Ghosh)
Member