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 categories. The initial part of the definition however makes it abundantly clear that the expression “service” is defined to mean service of any description. In other words, a service of every description would fall within the ambit of the statutory provision.”

10.     In view of aforesaid  discussion and  with due regard to decision, we arrive  at the conclusion that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside  and it is set-aside. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to  serve a copy of the order before the learned District Commission.

11.            In the result, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned District Commission to give opportunity to  OP to file written version within the stipulated period and hear both the parties on merit  in accordance with law and  disposed of the matter within 45 days from the date of receipt of  this  order.

               Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission on 26.09.2022 to take further instruction.

              The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

              Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

               DFR be sent back forthwith.