Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.5.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 104 of 1993.

2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant had registered himself with the opposite party No. 1 M/s. Mathura Gas Service for a gas connection on 21.3.1986. His registration number was 4057. The complainant waited for a very long time, but the connection was not given to him while persons junior to him have been given connections.

3. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the complainant is not a consumer.

4. The parties led evidence before the learned District Forum in support of their respective contentions. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence and relying on the case of Prabhu Dutt Sharma v. Proprietor/Manager, Khwaja Gas Agency,II (1992) CPJ 665, held that the complainant is not a consumer because a person by registration does not become consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

5. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in this appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.

6. None was present when the case was called inspite of notices having been issued to the parties on Service Postal Stamps. Hence the case is being decided on the basis of documents available in the appeal file.

7. We have perused the grounds of appeal and the judgment. It has been alleged in the memo of appeal that the order passed by the learned District Forum is not correct and the complainant is a consumer. In case which has been referred to in the judgment and order of the learned District Forum, the Rajasthan State Commission had come to the conclusion that merely by registration a person does not become a consumer. The same State Commission in the case of Sipani Automobiles Ltd. & Anr. v. Susheela Gupta & Ors., III (1996) CPJ 306, after scanning a number of cases decided by different State Commissions, came to the conclusion that if booking amount of the car is not returned despite the cancellation of the booking by the complainant and request by him for refund of the booking amount, there was deficiency in service. In this case the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash v. Asstt. Manager, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & Anr., reported in II (1994) CPJ 1 (SC), was also relied upon. Thus when the booking of a car by a person can make him a consumer for the purpose of refund of the amount, then in the present case also the booking of a gas connection by the complainant will make him a consumer. Thus the case relied upon by the learned District Forum is not correct. It may be noted that in the case of Prabhu Dutt Sharma v. Proprietor/Manager, Khwaja Gas Agency, none appeared on the side of the complainant. Thus the case was not argued in the right perspective. Keeping in view the latest position by the State Commission, it is clear that the complainant is a consumer and the complaint can be entertained.

8. In the present case the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint for want of the complainant being a consumer and did not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the case is to be remanded to the District Forum concerned for trial according to law. The appeal is thus liable to be allowed.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum concerned who will restore the case at its original number and then decide the same according to law after giving opportunities to both the parties. The District Forum shall issue notice to both the parties.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Forum concerned as well.

Appeal allowed.

–