Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President — The appeal arises out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Trichy dated 8.11.91 in O.P. 12/91. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2. The case of the complainant is that on 8.2.80, he applied for electric connection for agricultural purposes, but he was not given connection. No information was also received in spite of letters. He therefore sent another application on 30.12.85. For this application also there was no response. Hence this complaint.

3. The opposite parties denied that the complainant applied for electric connection in ‘80. No such application dated 8.2.80 has been received by the opposite parties. The postal acknowledgement produced by the complainant cannot be accepted. The complainant sent an application only on 30.12,85 and the same has been registered as No. 717 of 85.

4. The District Forum did not accept the case of the complainant that he sent an application for electric connection on 8.2.80, and held that his application was received only on 30.12.85 and connection will be given according to priority. The District Forum has also held that the complainant is not a consumer as connection has not yet been provided. Hence this appeal.

5. The conclusion of the District Forum that the complainant is not a consumer because he has only applied for electric connection and has not obtained cannot stand. Under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, “service” means service of any description which is available to potential users. The complainant is a potential under. Under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act a person is a consumer who hires any service for consideration which has been ‘paid or promised or partly paid and partly promises. A person who applies for electric connection has to pay the necessary charges after the connection is given. Therefore he is a person who has hired the services of the opposite party for consideration which is promised. We therefore hold that the complainant is a consumer.

6. The claim of the complainant is that he sent an application on 8.2.80 for electric connection and relies upon the postal acknowledgement dated 11.2.80. It is the contention of the opposite parties that no such application was received. They are also not in a position to verify, because records are destroyed after a period of 3 years. But there is the fact that the complainant has made an application on 30.12.85. If he had really sent an application on 8.2.80, there was no necessity for him to send another application on 30.12.85. He could have insisted upon the opposite parties to give connection as per the original application. He has not done so. The District Forum has therefore come to the conclusion that the complainant’s claim of having sent an application on 8.2.80 was not proved. In the circumstances it has rightly dismissed the claim.

7. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs.

Appeal dismissed.