Surinder Singh, President:
1. By means of this Revision Petition, the Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh, has impugned the correctness of an interim order passed by the Distt. forum on 7.12.90 in a complaint filed by Ms. Sharda Kaura, which is pending consideration before the Forum. In the order under revision, the point which has been considered and adjudicated upon is as to whether the service rendered by the Office of Accountant General Punjab, comes within the meaning of the word as defined in clause (o) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act. This Forum has held that the work carried on in the office of Revision Petitioner is covered by the definition of Service.
2. In the present Revision Petition, the learned Govt. Pleader has strenuously urged that in passing the impugned order the learned Forum has sought to exercise jurisdiction not vested in it under the Act. His contention, apart from the challenge to the interpretation of the work done in the office of Revision Petitioner being not a âServiceâ, is that the learned Forum has failed to decide the main preliminary objection taken in the reply filed by the petitioner that the complainant cannot be termed as a âConsumer not had she hired any service as such for consideration. It is further contended that the Revision Petitioner is not charging anything from the complainant for issuing the certificate in respect of payment of gratuity, regarding which the complainant has made a grievance.
3. We have heard the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of the Revision Petitioner and the counsel for the respondent complainant. The District Forum has gone only into the question as to whether the work carried out in the office of Revision Petitioner falls within the meaning of âservice. It has, however, not considered the other objection, which was an important one, that the complainant is not a âConsumer as defined under the Act nor had she hired any service for consideration. In this Revision Petition, we would not like to express any opinion on this legal point, which should be appropriately decided by the Distt. Forum. We would also refrain, at the present stage, from expressing any opinion on the point already decided by the Forum in its order under revision.
4. The Revision Petition is, therefore, accepted and the case is remanded to the Distt. Forum with a direction that it should decide the legal objection regarding the competence of the Respondent being not a âConsumer, as a preliminary issue, before proceeding to decide the merits of the claim.
5. The parties have been directed to appear before the Distt. Forum on the date already fixed by it in the case.