IMPORTANT POINT
District Forum – District Forum who is required to dispose of the consumer case in accordance with the law but instead of doing job has failed to exercise its jurisdiction.

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant being a Retd. Asst. Engineer is a consumer under the OP. He has requested to lay joint cable to his telephone No. ASB 277894 on 21.10.2003. On 03.11.2003 the OP discussed the matter with the complainant but due to want of telephone pole, D.P. Box etc. the telephone line was not connected. He approached the OP time and again but it was in vain. Therefore, he filed the complaint.

4. The OP challenged the complaint stating that there are some technical issue involved in this case. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:—

xxxx xxxx xxxx

“In the result, we dismissed the complaint with a direction to the complainant to approach some other Forum including the Civil Court for better adjudication and to have his remedy against the OP in the best interest of justice.”

6. It appears from the above impugned order that learned District Forum has considered the consumer complaint. The main grievance of the complainant is that this is a BSNL connection issue and the mistake is committed by OP. The learned District Forum should dispose of the matter instead of relegating to their Forum. There is disruption of the telephone due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP but not for him. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter should have been disposed of by the learned District Forum. The issues are not complicated only the single issue is with regard to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.

8. It appears that learned District Forum, without trying to find out issues has simply observed that the matters are complicated matters. Even if there is complicated matter but the deficiency in service has been alleged by the complainant. Therefore, learned District Forum who is required to dispose of the consumer case in accordance with the law but instead of doing job has failed to exercise its jurisdiction.

9. In similar matter Hon’ble Apex Court in Arun Bhatiya-Vrs-HDFC Bank reported in 2022,Vo.109,page-3924 observed in para-18 which is as follows:—

“A bench of this Court in Vodafone Idea Cellular Limited v. Ajay Kumar Agarwal (of which one of us, Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud, was part) explained that service of every description will fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘services’ under section 2(1)(o) of the a986 Act. The relevant extract reads as follows:—

“12. The definition of the expression “service” is couched in wide terms. The width of statutory language emerges from the manner in which the definition is cast. Parliament has used the expression “service of any description which is made available to potential users”. The definition employees the “means and includes formula”. The means part of the definition incorporates service of “any” description. The inclusive part incorporates services by way of illustration, such as facilities in connection with banking, finance, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical and other energy, board or lodging and housing construction. The inclusive part is prefaced by the clarification that the services which are specified are not exhaustive. This is apparent from the expression “but not limited to”. The last part of the definition excludes (i) the rendering of any service free of charge; and (ii) services under a contract of personal service. Parliament has confined the exclusion only to two specified