By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. The case of the complainant is that he is running STD/Public Call Office with telephone number 354695, under opposite parties. In the bill dated, 5-12-2000 an amount of Rs.100/- was charged as reconnection fee when actually there was no occasion of disconnection. He alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and claims compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties have filed joint version, disputing the jurisdiction of this Forum to try the case. That STD/PCO holder is not a consumer and hence the complaint is not maintainable. That opposite party has no connection with this complainant and the telephone 354695 is provided to one Abdul Hakim. It is admitted that Rs.100/- was collected as reconnection fee in bill dated, 5-12-2001. The bill dated, 20-10-2001 for Rs.1312/- was payable by 30-10-2001. the bill was paid only on 31-10-2001. Even though line ought to have been disconnected on 30-10-2001 disconnection was not actually effected to avoid inconvenience to the PCO holder. The bill was formulated by computer automatically. Instructions have been given to credit Rs.100/- in future bills. That complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence in this case consists of the affidavits filed by eitherside. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. No documents marked on the side of opposite parties. Both sides have not adduced any oral evidence. Due to vacancy in the post of President in 2003, there was no sitting of the Forum for a long time. This case first came up before us on 13-8-2007 and was finally heard on 4-12-2007.<br /> <br /> 4. The points that arise for consideration are: <br /> (i) Whether the complainant is consumer. <br /> (ii) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint. <br /> (iii) Whether opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service. <br /> (iv) Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. Point (i):- Opposite parties resist the complaint for the reason that complainant is not a consumer. It is also contended that the above telephone number is provided to Abdul Hakim who is the franchisee holder and not the complainant. In the affidavit complainant has clarified that the number is provided to Abdul Hakim who is his son and begs to prefer the complaint on behalf of his son, as a beneficiary. Opposite party strongly contends that complainant being an STD/PCO Franchisee does not fall under the definition of consumer since he does not hire any service from opposite parties. In a catena of cases it has been held that a franchisee holder is only a licensee of the grantor of the franchisee for operating STD/PCO and collecting the call charges on behalf of the franchiser. Applying decision held in 1994 (1) CPJ 14 (NC) The General Manager, Madras Telephone & Ors. Vs. R. Kannan, a franchisee holder who is maintaining and running a STD/PCO office is not a consumer. The complainant affirms that the STD booth is run by his son for earning livelihood by mneans of self employment. But this exclusion is applicable only when there is hiring of service in some manner, so as to bring such service out of the scope of commercial purposes. Here, there is no hiring of service at all. We are of the view that complainant is not a consumer. This point answered against the complainant. For the above said reason we do not proceed to discuss the question of jurisdiction raised by opposite party. Even though in the counter affidavit opposite party affirms that a petition is filed to stop all proceedings in pursuance of the interim order dated, 29-11-2004 in SLP-18409/03, no such petition is filed in this case.<br /> <br /> 6. Before departing with the case we would like to discuss one more aspect which needs mentioning. The complainant has arrayed an employee of BSNL as 1st opposite<br /> <br /> party. The address of opposite party No.1 noted in the original complaint was wrong. Thereafter complainant produced correct address and notice was issued to opposite party No.1. On the day of appearance, opposite party No.1 was present downstairs and sent ward a letter through a friend that he is unable to climb the stairs being sick. Complainant admitted that opposite party No.1 is a physically challenged person. Complainant was warned several times that 1st opposite party not a necessary party to the proceedings. Since 2nd opposite party had already entered appearance and also because no specific relief is claimed against opposite party No.1. Complainant insisted on issuance of notice to opposite party No.1. 1st opposite party who is an employee, of BSNL has been unnecessarily dragged to this controversy. This practice of impleading officers and employees who dealt with the case of consumer/complainant has to be depreciated. We restrain ourselves from imposing compensatory costs to opposite party No.1 eventhough it is a fit case to do so.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 14th day of January, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3<br /> Ext.A1 : Telephone bill for Rs.641/- for the period from 16-11-2001 <br /> to 30-11-2001.<br /> Ext.A2 : Telephone bill for Rs.1312/- for the period from 1-10-2001 <br /> to 15-10-2001.<br /> Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the request dated, 24-1-2001 from <br /> complainant to opposite party.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br />