JUDGMENT - Y. Krishan, Member:--This is a revision petition against the order of 14-5-1993 of the State Commission of Tamil Nadu. The order is a common order in R. Kannan v. General Manager, Madras Telephones, Appeal Petition No. 579 of 1992 and General Manager, Madras Telephones, Madras v. R. Kannan, Appeal Petition No. 640 of 1992. By this order the State Commission held that the STD/ISD booth owners hired the services of the appellant Telephone Department for hiring which the respondent-complainant here is paying Rs. 2,000/- per month. It, therefore, held that the respondent-complainant in this revision petition is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It came to the finding that the respondent-complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 83,991.20/- as the amount of commission payable to him. However it did not consider it justified to award any compensation to the respondent-complainant. 2. This is a case of grant of franchise by the revision petitioner Telecom Department to the respondent-complainant for running a STD/PCO. From the paperbook we are not able to discern precisely the conditions of contract for the grant of franchise. According to the revision petitioner Telecom Department and the agreement executed between the hirer of the PCO and the Telephone Department, the hirer of the STD/PCO was to provide a part of his premises for installing the PCO with STD facilities, the respondent franchise-holder undertook to perform the duties of a call office-holder at the call office. The franchise-holder was described in the agreement as hirer of the STD/PCO and was authorised to collect Re. 1/- per unit from the callers on behalf of the franchiser. For rendering this service the franchise-holder was entitled to a commission on a slab system basis ranging from 20 paise per call for the first 10,000 calls in a month to 5 paise per unit call for calls beyond 1,50,000 in a month. The hirer of the STD/PCO was to make his own arrangement for installing a metering device. 3. In the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission it has, however, been stated that the franchise-holder has to provide an approved instrument which is coin operated or card operated, a coin collecting box instrument of OMNITEL type. The hirer of the STD/PCO was to make his own arrangement for installing a metering device. 3. In the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission it has, however, been stated that the franchise-holder has to provide an approved instrument which is coin operated or card operated, a coin collecting box instrument of OMNITEL type. It has further been stated in that order that the complainant did not use this type of equipment and, therefore, according to the Telecom Department he was not entitled to a commission of 20 paise per unit call. This fact is not incorporated in the agreement between the parties. However, we feel that the precise terms of agreement between the franchiser Telecom Department and the franchise-holder/PCO holder are not relevant. 4. The only question that needs to be considered is whether the franchise-holder can be deemed to be a hirer of service of the Telecom Department and is, therefore, a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. 5. A franchise-holder is only a licensee of the grantor of the franchise for operating in this case the STD/PCO and collecting the call charges on behalf of the franchiser. It is the franchise-holder who is rendering service to the grantor of the franchise inasmuch as he runs and maintains STD/PCO relieving the Telecom Department of the responsibility for providing and maintaining Public Call Offices. The franchise-holder performs two functions : (a) established and runs a public Call Office; and (b) collects the call charges on behalf of the department. For rendering these services to the franchiser, the franchise-holder gets a commission. The mere fact that the franchise-holder has been described as the hirer of the PCO does not make him a person who renders service to the revision petitioner, Telecom Department. Consequently, the fact that he has been described as hirer in the agreement would not mean that he is rendering a service to the Telecom Department for consideration. A franchise-holder renders service to those who use the Public Call Office which is performed by the Telecom Department directly wherever there is no franchiser to manage a Public Call Office. Consequently, it is erroneous to hold in this case that the franchise-holder, who is maintaining and running a STD/PCO office, is a consumer vis-a-vis the revision petitioner, Telecom Department. 6. Consequently, it is erroneous to hold in this case that the franchise-holder, who is maintaining and running a STD/PCO office, is a consumer vis-a-vis the revision petitioner, Telecom Department. 6. The revision petition succeeds and the order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Revision petition allowed. *****