—Order— By this revision petition under section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) (which for the sake of convenience be hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed by the Union of India through General Manager, Tele-communications, Jaipur Tele-communications, District Jaipur against the order dated February 18, 1989 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 20 of 1989. 2. The petitioner is the opposite party in the complaint so hereinafter reference to the petitioner in this revision will be as opposite party. Non-petitioner No. 1 will be referred as the complainant. 3. The complainant (non-petitioner in revision) submitted a complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur averring that telephone No. 842582 was installed at his commercial establishment and that he was having telephone connection since 1984. There were excess charges in the telephone bills on account of STD and so STD was got disconnected. Thereafter the complainant received bills which ranged from Rs. 51/- to a few hundreds. The complainant has stated that on 1-6-88 the complainant received a bill for Rs. 3375/- and on 1-8-88 he received a bill for Rs. 7235/-. An application was submitted by the complainant for correcting the bill on receipt of bill dated 1-6-88.. He was informed that the bill was correct and there was nothing wrong in the meter. On receipt of the second bill on 1-8-88 the complainant again wrote to the Telecom Department. However, it informed the complainant that Rs. 7779/- should be deposited by 20-1-89. 4. The complainant filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Munsif-Magistrate No. 2 Jaipur City for declaration that the bill is wrong. A order was passed by the Court that the complainant should deposit the amount of Rs. 7235/- under protest and if it is so done the connection may be restored which was disconnected on January 30, 1989. The complainant was not satisfied with the order of Munsif-Magistrate No. 2 Jaipur city and so he filed an appeal which was transferred to the Additional District Judge No. 3 Jaipur City. A complaint was also filed before the District Forum, Jaipur. A notice was issued to the opposite party. The complainant was not satisfied with the order of Munsif-Magistrate No. 2 Jaipur city and so he filed an appeal which was transferred to the Additional District Judge No. 3 Jaipur City. A complaint was also filed before the District Forum, Jaipur. A notice was issued to the opposite party. An application was filed by the opposite party before the District Forum on 17-2-89 stating that as civil proceedings are pending, so the complaint could not be filed in view of S. 10 C.P.C. and that the telephone facility provided to the complainant is not a service and the subscriber of the telephone is not a consumer and as such the complaint is not maintainable and it should be dismissed. The application filed by the opposite party raising the aforesaid objections was resisted by the complainant by filing a reply. The District Forum heard the arguments and by order dated 18-2-89 rejected the objections raised on behalf of the opposite party and dismissed the application. Hence this revision as aforesaid. The District Forum, Jaipur has been arrayed as non-petitioner No. 2 in the revision petition. Notice was issued to it but no appearance has been put in on its behalf.. 5. We have heard Mr. N. C. Choudhary Advocate for the opposite party (petitioner in revision) and Mr. Satish Chandra Purohit for non-petitioner No. 1 (complainant) and have also carefully considered the record. 6. It is not necessary to examine the question about the stay of the proceedings of the complaint under S. 10 C.P.C. for the simple reason that the learned counsel for the complainant had assured the District Forum Jaipur that he would immediately withdraw the Civil Appeal and Civil Suit from both the Courts and as such the District Forum was of the opinion that there was no objection in entertaining the complaint. Mr. Satish Chandra Purohit informed us that the appeal and the suit have already been withdrawn. 7. The only question involved in this revision is whether the District Forum Jaipur was right in holding that the telephone facility provided by the Telecom Department is a "service" as envisaged by the Act and as such the District Forum had/has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the opposite party which was filed by the complainant who is a consumer of the Telecom Department. 8. 8. We do not consider it necessary to go into the letters referred to by the District Forum for the simple reason that we are called upon to determine whether the complaint filed by the complainant against the Telecom Department is maintainable under the Act and the District Forum had has jurisdiction to redress the grievances of the complainant. 9. "Complainant" has been defined in section 2(l)(b) of the Act. Amongst others, complainant means a consumer. Section 2(1)(c) defines "complaint". It inter alia, means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect. The material part of the definition of "consumer" contained in section 2(l)(d) of the Act is as follows :— (d) "consumer" means any person who,— (i) ............................. (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person;" 10. "Service" has been defined in section 2(i)(o) of the Act which reads as under:— (o) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance,transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both entertainment, amusement or the purveying (sic) of news or other information but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service." 11. "Deficiency" has been defined in S. 2(l)(g) of the Act which is as under:— (g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;" 12. The first question is whether the Telecom Department provides any "service" or merely a facility as contended by the learned counsel for the Telecom Department. The first question is whether the Telecom Department provides any "service" or merely a facility as contended by the learned counsel for the Telecom Department. The definition of "service" mentions some illustrations of the services which are available to potential users. A person who avails of the telephone connection is required to pay telephone installation charges as well as rental for its use. In other words when the Telecom Department provides a telephone on payment of charges and recovers rental for its use from a person, he hires services for consideration. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the Telecom Department that it is a facility provided by the Telecom Department to the subscriber. "Facility" means "being easy", "absence of difficulty", "unimpeded opportunity "ease" etc. Subscriber means a person who contributes specified sum to or to a common fund or for a common object. The person who has a telephone connection pays rental for the telephone provided by the Telecom Department. He may be said to be a subscriber in the loose sense but nevertheless he is a "consumer" as defined in S. 2(l)(d) of the Act. We have to go by the definition of the "consumer" mentioned in the Act and to our mind when consideration is paid as rental for the use of the telephone by the subscriber/consumer, he has hired the services of the Telecom Department, deficiency consists in any; (a) Fault (b) Imperfection (c) Shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or (d) has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or otherwise in relation to any service. 13. It will be useful to quote the words of the General Manager Jaipur Telecom Department. "It will be our earnest endeavour to provide better Telecom Services to all our esteemed customers inspite of several constraints." 14. The preamble of the Act recites that it is to provide for the better protection of the interests of consumers and for the purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers disputes and for matters connected therewith. 15. The preamble of the Act recites that it is to provide for the better protection of the interests of consumers and for the purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers disputes and for matters connected therewith. 15. Having considered the definitions of the "complaint", "complainant", "consumer", "service" and "deficiency" contained in the Act, we are of opinion that the complainant who is a subscriber according to the opposite party is a "consumer" and the telephone service provided by the Telecom Department is a "service", for he pays rental for it. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite party (the petitioner in revision) that the complainant is such a subscriber, who cannot be called a consumer under the Act and that the connection of telephone provided to the complainant is a facility and not a "service". The District Forum Jaipur had/has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding the alleged deficiency in service in regard to the telephone installed at the commercial premises of the complainant. The District Forum has jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate upon the consumer dispute in accordance with Law. The order dated 18.2.89 passed by the District Forum Jaipur is maintained, 16. The result is that this revision fails and it is dismissed. No order as to costs. As the main revision has been dismissed, the stay application is also dismissed. 17. Copies of the orders be sent/supplied to both the parties free of cost after the order is ready. 18. Record of the complaint received from District Forum, Jaipur be sent back to it alongwith the copy of order. 19. Order pronounced on March 17, 1989.