Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that he is a cable operator and he has filed a complaint against the opposite party No.1 and 2 who are the distributors of the opposite party No.1 Star India Limited and they distribute channels to him. The complainant, who is the petitioner before us in turn helps the consumers on payment of certain monthly fee to see the channels of Star India. In short, he is the re-seller of the services provided by opposite party No.1, 2 & 3, ultimately to the consumers. He further submits that he is basically a franchisee holder of the three respondents who were the opposite parties before the District Forum. Hence it appears that the petitioner is not a consumer eligible to file a complaint before the District Forum.

2. The President of the U.P. State Commission in his concurrent judgment with a Member of the State Commission has mentioned as follows:

“Having regard to all what has been discussed above, I am of the decisive opinion that the impugned order was absolutely illegal and passed without jurisdiction. It, therefore, deserves to be quashed with the finding that .the complaint is not at all maintainab