The FORA have jurisdiction to adjudicate consumer disputes arising out of the hiring of services for consideration, but they cannot act as policy makers and give directions for the construction of passenger sheds and waiting rooms.

Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—This appeal is by Union of India representing Railways challenging order of District Forum, Mansa dated August 29,1997 whereby following directions were given to the Railways to be complied with :

“The opposite parties to remove deficiency in providing service to the travellers (general public) who daily travel through Railways at Railway Station, Mansa in respect of cleaning toilets and other urinals and further make provisions of suitable waiting hall for all classes of railway passengers and also provide sheds as per length of the Passenger/Express Train on both sides of the platform. Further the more sitting benches should be got installed on both sides of the platform within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of order and similarly Railway Authorities are also liable to provide fully cleaned urinals and toilets in the railway compartments at the earliest”

2. The appellants were also directed to pay Rs. 1,100/- as costs and compensation for the loss suffered to the complainant, Suraj Kumar Chhabra.

3. Suraj Kumar Chhabra, the complainant after getting seats reserved for journey from Mansa to Delhi and back travelled by Punjab Mail. On December 16, 1996, he returned to Mansa. He travelled in Class Second. He noticed lack of facilities in the train as well as at the Platform, Railway Station, Mansa for which he moved the complaint before the District Forum. The opposite parties contested the complaint by submitting their version taking up different preliminary objections and denying the factum of taking journey by the complainant and finding deficiency in rendering service on their part in respect of the facilities referred to above. However, it was stated that some plans were under consideration for extension of the Railway Station for providing more sheds for the passengers. The building was likely to be completed soon for which funds have been made available. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents.

4. Learned Counsel for the Railways has argued that the complainant could not be treated as a consumer as defined, particularly with respect to the amenities and the facilities, which the Railway was expected to provide at the Platform or at the Railway Station. In particular, reference has been made to the directions given by the District Forum with regard to extension of the sheds upto the length of the trains on both sides of the platform and raising new sheds for the passengers for all classes at the Railway Station, Mansa. He also argued that no evidence was produced by the complainant that he in fact had travelled by the Punjab Mail on the dates mentioned above that he could be treated as a consumer with respect to the journey performed on purchasing such a ticket. The present is not a case of sale of goods or finding defect therein as contemplated under the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The case would be governed by second clause which refers to hiring services of the opposite party for consideration and finding defect therein. The extract of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) is, therefore, referred to which reads as under :

“(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person.”

5. The complainant produced his reservation slip before the District Forum, which is Ex. C2 for his journey by Punjab Mail from New Delhi to Mansa on payment of Rs. 114/-. Thus, the complainant who has given his affidavit that he has travelled on the aforesaid ticket on that day in Punjab Mail stands proved and thus he would be a