Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—This appeal is by the complainant-Ranjit Singh Dhillon, who in response to an advertisement issued by Punjab Petroleum Corp. Ltd. for allotment of agency for distribution of L.P.G. cylinders applied alongwith requisite amount of Rs. 2,995/-. After interviews were held, the complainant was again asked to deposit another sum of Rs. 10,000/-. It was done. Subsequently, when no agency was allowed the present complaint was filed for refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- as the other amount of Rs. 2,995/-.had already been refunded. On the set of facts as stated above, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant could not be treated as a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. After hearing Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that this appeal can be dismissed in limine as the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer. The present is not a case of sale of goods or finding any defect therein that the complainant could be treated as a consumer. It has been argued that the complainant wanted to avail the services of the opposite party for which such amounts had already been deposited and the services were to allot the agency. Since it was not done, there was deficiency in rendering service. We fail to appreciate this argument in the context as referred to above. In the matter of contract of agency the complainant at the most can be treated as an agent and the opposite party as principal. There is no question of agent hiring or availing services of principal in such like matters. At the most, the present is a case for refund of the amount paid to the opposite party. Non-payment of such amount cannot be called a deficiency in rendering service for which resort can be had under the Consumer Protection Act. This appeal is dismissed in limine, leaving the complainant to seek his remedy, if any in the Civil Court.

Appeal dismissed in limine.

––