S.S. Ganguly, J. — The petitioners’ case as per their application under Article 227 of the Constitution are the following: —

The opposite party/his father are tenants in respect of two tenancies with regard to two different portions of the self-sme house under a religious trust of which the trustees are the petitioners no. 1 to 3. Under the terms of two written agreements for the two tenancies the tenants were allowed to use only the municipal taps, served by municipal main line via underground and overhead reservoirs. There is a well within the area of the house the water of which has been used all throughout exclusively for the seva puja of the deities of the trust and for no other purpose. The well has all along been under lock and key, the key lying with the priest, the petitioner No. 4.

2. On 5.5.91 the petitioner No.1 received by registered post copies of an application filed by the opposite party before the learned President, Calcutta District Forum, Bhawani Bhavan, Alipore dated 22.1.91 along with a show cause notice issued on the same date in case No. CDF 1234 of 1991 whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the said District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1936 on 5.2.91 with a warning that in case of disobedience the application would be disposed of ex-parte. Along with them were enclosed two orders passed by Sri S.S. Gupta, learned President, Calcutta District Forum on 22.1.91 and 5.2.91. By both these orders the petitioners were directed to allow the opposite party to draw water from the well through the existing pump-set and the O.C., Baranagore P.S. was directed to assist the opposite party to draw water from the well. The petitioners contend that the opposite party falsely stated in his application before the Forum that the terms of the agreements of tenancy permitted him to draw water from the tank and that the petitioners mischievously prevented him from drawing water from the well. The Forum’s jurisdiction to entertain the application of the opposite party has also been challenged.

3. We take up the question of jurisdiction first. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act henceforward) as its preamble shows, was enacted for the better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith. Who is a consumer and what is a consumers’ dispute?

4. A “Consumer” as per Section 2(1)(d) is (a) a buyer of goods for consideration or a user( thereof with the consent of the buyer or (b) a hirer of any services also for consideration, or a beneficiary of such services with the approval of the hirer. Goods is as defined in the Sale of Goods Act [Section 2(1)(i)], Section 2(7) of which defines “goods” as every kind of moveable property. Service on the other hand means “service of any description including the provisions of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying a news or other information but excluding any service-free of charge or under a contract of personal service [Section 2(1)(o).] Any consumer may lodge a complaint i.e. any allegation in writing that—

(i) as a result of any unfair trade practice adopted by any trader, the complaint has suffered loss or damage;

(ii) the goods mentioned in the complaint suffer from one or more defects;

(iii) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect;

(iv) a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods, [Sec. 2(1) (c)].

5. A “Consumer dispute” means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made denies or disputes the allegations