3

in respect of single service only. The complainant engaged one Computer Operator

with a salary of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. The opposite parties did not show any interest in

providing the remaining 63 services to the complainant.

4. The complainant was spending the expenses for smooth running of the

center with loss of income since January 2006 i.e.

S.No. Expenditure incurred Amount

Rupees

i. Monthly rents for building

a) Operator salary per month

b) Sweeper salary

3,500/-

3,000/-

200/-

ii Internet and Telephone charges approximately per month 980/-

iii Electricity consumption charges per month and other

expenses

360/-

iv Interest on deposit amount of Rs. 1,96,000/- @ 24% p.a. 3,920/-

v Interest on furniture cost of Rs. 82,000/- and internal

decoration charges including labour charges of Rs.

10,000/- and shop advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- @

24% p.a.

2,040/-

vi Total monthly expenses 14,000/-

vii Approximate monthly income 1,000/-

5. The opposite parties assured a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- from the

center. The complainant had a net loss of Rs. 13,000/- p.m. Therefore, the

complainant was forced to close the center in October 2007. In spite of it the

complainant had to pay the rents and electricity charges and telephone bills till that

day. The opposite parties falsely represented in the project information document

without any prior permission from the concerned authorities causing a deposit of

Rs. 1,96,000/- for allotting the center. Thus there was deficiency of service on the

part of the opposite parties, as they failed to provide remaining 63 services to the

center started by the complainant.

6. The complainant spent Rs. 23,500/- towards telephone bills, internet

charges and electricity charges from March 2006 till that day and spent

4

Rs. 1,02,000/- towards decoration including furniture and shop advance with

interest @ 24% p.a. and monthly salary of the computer operator of Rs. 3,000/- p.m

from June 2006 to December 2007 with interest @ 24% p.a. and also shop rents and

interest from March 2006. The opposite parties were liable to pay the amount to the

complainant. The opposite parties were further liable to pay the loss of damage and

earnings of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and also liable to refund the

deposit amount of Rs. 1,96,000/-with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till

the date of refund and also a loss of Rs. 13,000/- p.m. Thus the complaint was filed

for Rs. 1,96,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. ;from the date of deposit till date of

payment and Rs. 10,000/- advance from March 2006 till the day with interest @ 24%

p.a. and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of earnings. Thus the total claim was

Rs. 4,64,880/- along with costs.

7. The opposite parties filed the counter that the complainant was not a

consumer and hence, the complaint was not maintainable under the provisions of

C.P. Act. The transaction was a commercial transaction and the opposite parties had

never promised to provide 64 services towards E -sava services. The complainant

suppressed the information regarding the arrangement to him. The 1

issued an advertisement in the news paper calling upon interested persons to apply

for operating Rajiv Internet Center at various places, including the territorial limits of

the complainant. It was not correct that the complainant approached the opposite

parties to start Franchise to operate Rajiv Internet Center at S. Mydukur Village,

Kadapa District under self employment for his livelihood and the opposite parties

agreed to provide Internet Center at S. Mydukur and furnished Project information

document for proposed service item Nos. 1 to 64. It was not correct that at the

instance of the opposite parties the complainant arranged the building on monthly

rents of Rs. 3,500/- and paid Rs. 10,000/- towards advance and entered into rental

agreement and spent Rs. 82,000/- towards furniture and Rs. 10,000/- towards

5

decoration and later it was inspected and satisfied by the opposite parties to start the

internet center.

8. It was true that the Rajiv Internet Center at S. Mydukur village was

allotted to the complainant by the opposite parties. But it was not for running 64

services. It was true that the opposite parties provided one UPS, Computer, one

Scanner, one Web Camera, One Printer and other material to operate the internet

Center by the complainant. The opposite parties provided only one single service i.e.

collection of electricity bills from the electricity consumers but not for running

remaining 63 services. It was not correct to provide within a month or two months

from January 2006. It was not correct that the telephone connection with Internet

and a computer operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/- p.m was provided at

the instance of the opposite parties and the opposite parties assured to provide the

remaining 63 services as per project information document. It was not correct that

the complainant spent the expenditure since January 2006 as mentioned in the

complaint. It was not correct that the opposite parties assured Rs. 20,000/- p.m as

income and they failed to provide remaining 63 services to the center and hence, the

complainant had a loss. It was not correct that it was a deficiency of service on the

part of the opposite parties. It was not correct that the center was closed in October

2007. It was not correct that the complainant deposit of Rs. 1,96,000/- in view of

false representation made by the opposite parties under project information

document.

9. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in pursuance of its e – Governance

programme to provide services within the reach of rural population through internet,

proposed to set up Rajiv Internet village centers across the state on “build, own and

operate” model during November 2004 (i.e. Rajiv Project). For that purpose the

government called for Request of Expression of Interest (EOI) and Request for

6

Proposal (RFP). M/s Bharath Electronics Limited (BEL) teamed up with 1

party formed a consortium in terms of a teaming up agreement dt. 15-12-2004

entered into between BEL and 1

the Rajiv project. The consortium submitted its bid for the project with BEL as prime

bidder. The bid was accepted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Rajiv

Project was awarded to the consortium and a letter of internet dt. 6-5-2005 was

issued. Later BEL entered in to an agreement on 01-9-2005 (Principal Contract) with

the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In the RFP and in the Principal contract the

Government declared that 64 government and other services were available to

common citizen on chargeable basis. The 1

setting up the required data service centers and worked for developing the required

software for the implementation of integrated citizen service centers specified in the

RPF by investing Rs. 10 crores. Applications were invited for operating Rajiv Internet

Centers in various parts of Andhra Pradesh.

10. The complainant submitted an application seeking franchise to operate

Internet Center at S. Mydukur village and was permitted to operate it. The

complainant deposited Rs. 1,96,000/- as advance which was nonrefundable after he

had gone through the scope of business of the center. The amount was paid towards

expenses incurred by the opposite parties to provide necessary Information

Technology Infrastructure such as creating portals, data centre, applications etc.,

through which the complainant could provide various services to his customers. The

1

and one printer to the complainant.

11. The Project Information document issued by 1

services identified the Government such as telephone, electricity and tax payment

and whatever services approved by the government could be provided to the

7

complainant and there was no agreement for any specific services. It was not

promised to provide a particular number of services to the complainant.

12. As per clause 10-5 of the Consortium Agreement it was the responsibility

of BEL to ensure compliance of the responsibilities and obligations of the government

of Andhra Pradesh, participating Departments, A.P. Portal and e-sava. BEL should

ensure that roles and responsibilities of project stake holders such as Government of

Andhra Pradesh, participating Departments, Director – EDS and Rajiv Project AP and

e-Seva portals were cooridinated and any lapses, deficiency of service was recorded

and reported to the concerned stake holders. So BEL and the Government were

equally responsible for failure of the project and denial of Government of services to

the citizens including the complainant but not the opposite parties. The Government

of India through the Department of Information Technology came up to set up

1,00,000 ICT and broad band enabled kiosks known as common service centers

(CSC) to provide Government and private services. The CSE would function on the

same line as Rajiv Project. Government of Andhra Pradesh insisted that BEL and 1

opposite party should voluntarily exit from Rajiv Project to enable the Government to

wind up the Rajiv Project in view of existing CSC scheme. BEL gave up Rajiv project

in preference to CSC project at a meeting held on 17-5-2007 at Government of India.

The 1

by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and BEL. Thus the 1

not run the project. Both the Government of Andhra Pradesh and BEl were equally

responsible for failure of Rajiv Project and denial of Government services to the public

including the complainant. even after the project was closed the complainant

continued the center with opportunity provided by 1

commission derived from the services. During the review programme the opposite

prties found that the complainant used the infrastructure for creating false

documents for unlawful gain. So the opposite parties terminated the franchise by

8

way of letter on 9-2-2008. Thus there was no deficiency of services and negligence

on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

13. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for

determination.

i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the

part of the opposite parties?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?

14. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A11 were marked and on behalf

of the respondents Ex. B1 to B14 were marked. Both parties filed written arguments

also.

15. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant started Rajiv Internet Center at S.

Mydukur village, Kadapa district under self employment for his livelihood which was

a project initiated by the government of Andhra Pradesh. The complainant

approached the opposite parties on the publicity made by them calling upon

intending persons to operate Rajiv Internet centers at various places in Andhra

Pradesh. The opposite parties accepted and provided Internet center at S. Mydukur

Village, Kadapa District and furnished project information document for the proposed

services item Nos. 1 to 64. The complainant deposited Rs. 1,96,000/- with the

opposite parties to provide the proposed services 1 to 64 to operate Rajiv Internet

Center at S. Mydkur. After receiving the deposit amount of Rs. 1,96,000/- by way of

various D.D’s in favour of Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Hyderabad, the opposite

parties passed on receipts in favour of the complainant for the said deposit amount.

The opposite parties provided one U.P.S, one computer, one scanner, one Web

camera and one printer to the complainant to operate Rajiv Internet Center at S.

Mydukur Vilage, Kadapa District. The complainant filed Xerox copies of receipts

issued by 2

9

13-3-2006, Rs. 46,000/- on 13-3-2006, Rs. 40,000/- on 7-1-2006, Rs. 40,000/- on

7-1-2006 and Rs. 20,000/- on 7-1-2006 totaling Rs. 1,96,000/- under Ex. A1. There

was no dispute about the amount deposited by the complainant with opposite party

No. 2.

16. The complainant arranged a building to operate Rajiv Internet Center on

monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/- p.m and paid advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the

building owner. The complaint filed a rental agreement for Rs. 3,500/- p.m as rent

entered with one B.L. Parvati. It was an unregistered lease deed for 5 years period

from 2-3-2006 to 2-3-2011. It was not an admissible document, because it required

registration. The complainant filed Ex. A2 a Xerox copy of project information

document for Rajiv Internet Center supplied by 1

services. The complainant appointed one computer operator at the center on a

monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/- and also a Sweeper for Rs. 200/- p.m as monthly

salary. He took telephone connection along with Internet connection to run the

center for 64 items mentioned in Ex. A2. Apart from it the complainant spent

Rs. 82,000/- towards furniture and Rs. 10,000/- towards internal decoration of the

building. He filed Ex. A9 a receipt issued by Sri Venkateswara Flywood and

Furniture, Kadapa for Rs. 80,000/- for purchasing of chairs and tables and other

material to the building.

17. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties provided only one

single service i.e. collection of electricity bills from the electricity consumers and

failed to provide the remaining 63 services as shown in the Ex. A2. The complainant

filed Ex. A3 a Xerox copy of pamphlet issued by opposite party No. 2 regarding self

employment opportunity under Rajiv Internet (e-Sava Centers). He filed Ex. A4 Xerox

copy of paper clippings starting Rajiv Internet Centers under self employment

programme. Ex. A5 was a Xerox copy of letter from opposite party No. 2 about the

10

project information document i.e. Ex. A2. The complainant spent Rs. 23,500/-

towards telephone bills, Internet charges and electricity charges from march 2006 till

the date of filing of the complaint. Ex. A10 was bunch of telephone bills. He filed

Ex.A11 a bunch of stamped vouchers for payment of house rent to the building

where the internet center was started. The complainant approached the opposite

parties that they have not provided all 64 services mentioned in Ex. A2 and so he

requested to refund of Rs. 1,96,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of

deposit till payment and Rs. 10,000/- towards advance to the building from March

2006 and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of earning totaling Rs. 4,64,880/- and also

furniture cost, a computer operator salary, internet telephone charges and monthly

rent along with interest. To that effect the complainant got issued a notice to the

opposite parties 1 to 3 on 4-2-2008. The office copy of the registered notice was Ex.

A6. The opposite party No. 1 under Ex.A7 sent a reply on 26-2-2008. He filed Ex. A8

letter from opposite party No. 2 requesting to deposit Franchise and license fees for

conformation of the project.

18. The opposite parties argued that M/s Bharath Electronics Limited (BEL)

teamed up with opposite party No. 1 under Teaming up agreement dt. 15-12-2004

and in terms of it a consortium agreement dt. 31-8-2005 was entered between BEL

and opposite party No. 1 agreeing interalia to submit a bid for the Rajiv Internet

Project. The Consortium submitted its bid for the project with BEL as prime bidder.

It was accepted by Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Rajiv Project was awarded

to the Consortium. Later BEL entered into agreement on 01-9-2005 with

Government of Andhra Pradesh. Ex. B1 was Xerox copy of Teaming up agreement.

Ex. B2 was the Xerox copy of contract dt. 31-8-2005 between BEL and opposite

party No. 1. Ex. B3 was the Xerox copy of contract between BEL and

Commissionerate of Electronically Deliverable Services (e-sava) Department of

information Technology and communications Department, Government of Andhra

11

Pradesh, Hyderabad for Design, Development, Testing, implementation, operation

and maintenance of Rajiv Internet village Centers. In Ex. A2 at page – 4 under item 4

“Locations available for setting up kiosks”, it was mentioned that at present

Government of Andhra Pradesh had identified various services that would be

rendered in rural areas which were listed in table (2). The table (2) in Ex. A2 was

probable income for a model kiosk for 64 services. More over it was further noted

under the said item that currently only a few services were being enabled by the

government. Efforts were on to introduce the other services in a phased manner. It

would take some time before those services were added. Efforts were on to market

and introduce new private services other than those listed by the Government. In the

same Ex. A2 at page 6 under item 8 “Revenue and Profitability” it was noted that the

Government of Andhra Pradesh had a sample income and expenditure table (Table -

2) to give an idea of what kind of business could be expected to happen at the Kiosk.

The figures were purely indicatory and were estimated for a progressive village. The

Department of EDS, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BEL and Radiant would actively

pursue marketing effort to bring in as many new services as possible, to increase the

revenue at the Kiosk level. Therefore, there was no promise from the opposite parties

to provide all 64 services mentioned in the table shown in Ex. A2. In view of Ex. A2

as discussed earlier the service would be provided by the Government of Andhra

Pradesh, BEL and the Opposite parties.

19. The BEL had not renewed bank guarantee and so it was expired on

10-7-2006 in view of the meager income from the Kiosks. The government of Andhra

Pradesh had not agreed to the proposal of BEL for “corporate guarantee” in lieu of

“bank guarantee”. Therefore, the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh addressed a letter to the

Govt. of India to intervene to advise M/s Bharath Electronics Ltd., to exit voluntarily

from the Rajiv Internet Scheme. The Xerox copy of letter addressed by the

Government of Andhra Pradesh to the Government of India was Ex. B4, dt. 18-1-

2007. Ex. B5 was Xerox copy of letter from Government of India dt. 1-2-2007that the

12

scheme could not be implemented successfully and the State was keen to undertake

establishment of (CSC) Common Service Center Programme under CSC programe of

Govt. of India and requested the agencies with whom they had contracted earlier to

make a clean exit from the schemes so that the new bid process could take place and

M/s BEL could submit a bid in a new process. Ex. B6 was a Xerox copy of minutes

for common service centers issued by Government of India, regarding implementation

of the programme for Common Service Centers in Andhra Pradesh. Ex. B7 was Xerox

copy of letter from opposite party No. 1 to M/s BEL, Bangalore regarding the Rajiv

Project, dt. 25-7-2007. Ex. B8 was a Xerox copy of letter from opposite party No. 1

to BEL, Bangalore. Ex. B9 was a Xerox copy of letter from Opposite party No. 1 to

BEL, Bangalore that it was decided by the Secretary (DP) in consultation with

Government of Andhra Pradesh representative that BEL / Radiant should withdraw

from the current project. Hence, it would not matter to them whether it was

acceptable to BEL / Radiant. Ex. B10 was Xerox copy of notice issued by opposite

party No. 1. to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Ex. B11 Xerox copy of reply from

the Government of Andhra Pradesh to opposite party No. 1 through the advocate of

opposite party No. 1 that there was no agreement signed between Government of

Andhra Pradesh and BEL and the opposite party No. 1 was not a party in it. Ex.

B12 was Xerox copy of the notice issued by opposite party No. 1 to the Government of

Andhra Pradesh. Ex. B13 was Xerox copy of letter from Government of Andhra

Pradesh to the Convener, State Wide Rajiv Internet Villages Organization, Kanigiri,

Prakasam District that the interest of Rajiv operators through the scheme were being

taken care of.

20. The Ex. B14 was Xerox copy of letter from opposite party No. 1 to the

complainant that the complainant created templates of University marks cards and

Secondary school certificates which was created false documents and making

unlawful gain and to that effect there was substantial and sufficient proof available

and infrastructure was misused for unlawful gain. Therefore, franchise agreement

13

was terminated with immediate effect, without prejudice to the legal rights of the

opposite party No. 1. The complainant had not proved with evidence contrary to Ex.

B14 that he was not creating false document for unlawful gain. Therefore, his

franchise agreement was terminated with effect from 9-2-2008.

21. Apart from it the opposite party No. 1 supplied a computer, printer,

scanner, web camera, U.P.S and other accessories as admitted by the complainant in

his complaint, to operate the center. They were still in possession and enjoyment of

the complainant. While enjoying the articles supplied by the opposite party No. 1 the

complainant claimed his deposit amount of Rs. 1,96,000/-. It was against the public

policy spending of amount for decoration and furniture was his own wish. There

was no compulsion from opposite party to arrange the building in a large scale

fashion. Though the opposite party No. 1 terminated the agreement under Ex. B14,

the complainant was running internet for his wrongful gain to which services the

opposite parties were not responsible and were not liable. Therefore, there was no

deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

22. The complainant relied on II (1996) CPJ 88 (NC) Cheema Engineering

Services Vs. Rajan Singh. It was held that the goods purchased for the machinery for

purpose of earning livelihood was not a disqualification seeking protection under C.P.

Act. A person who purchased a machine to operate himself for earning his livelihood

would be a consumer. In 2003 (1) ALD Cons. 21 Super Veg Farms Pvt. Ltd.,

Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam and another Vs. Royal Farms Agro projects Consultancy

Division, Visakhpatnam and others, the opposite parties agreed to extend marketing

consultancy service for selling 10,000 super veg cards within a period of 100 – 150

days and in case of poor response they agreed to assist the complainants i n

marketing a minimum viable number of 3000 cards. The complainant agreed to pay

consultancy fee to the opposite parties. The opposite parties failed to assist in selling

14

a minimum number of 3000 cards and there was deficiency of service on the part of

the opposite parties. Hence, it was held the opposite parties were directed to pay a

sum of Rs. 11 lakhs to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of

filing of the complaint till realization and costs of Rs. 5,000/-. In 1986 -99

Consumer 4572 (NS) Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., and another Vs.

Gajanan Y. Mandrekar. It was held the respondent was Civil Contractor bought

tripper truck for earning his livelihood. Whether it was for commercial purpose or

self occupation. It was self occupation to earn his livelihood. The rulings cited by

the complainant are not applicable to the present facts of the case. The Franchise

agreement was terminated under Ex. B14 by saying that the opposite party No. 1 had

sufficient proof in respect of misuse of infrastructure and facilities provided and

making unlawful gain by creating templates of university marks cards and secondary

school certificates. It was using for creating false documents. Even after termination

the complainant was running the Internet at S. Mydukur. There was no provision

any where in Ex. A2 that 64 services were provided to the complainant. Therefore,

there was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties

including unfair trade practice. Thus the points are answered accordingly.

23. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by us in the open forum, this the 25

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -

Ex. A1 X/c of bills (6 bills) issued by R2 on different dates.

Ex. A2 X/c of Project information document.

Ex. A3 X/c of Rewarding Self Employment opportunity issued by R2.

Ex. A4 X/c of paper clippings.

Ex. A5 X/c of letter of Project information document, dt. 12-11-2005.

Ex. A6 X/c of notice from complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties,

dt. 4-2-2008.

15

Ex. A7 X/c copy of reply notice from R1 to complainant’s advocate,

dt. 26-2-2008

Ex. A8 X/c of letter from R2 to complainant, dt. 11-1-2006.

Ex. A9 Bill issued by Sri Venkateswara Flywoods & Furniture in

favour of complainant, dt. 5-3-2006.

Ex. A10 Bunch of telephone bills.

Ex. A11 Bunch of stamped vouchers towards house rent.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: -

Ex. B1 X/c of Teaming up agreement, dt. 15-12-2004.

Ex. B2 X/c of contract dt. 31-8-2005 between BEL and opposite party No. 1.

Ex. B3 X/c of contract between BEL and Commissionerate of Electronically

Deliverable Services (e-sava) Department of information Technology.

Ex. B4 X/c of letter from Principal Secretary to Govt. Information Technology,

A.P. to Addl. Secretary, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi,

dt. 18-1-2007.

Ex. B5 X/c of letter from Addl. Secretary, Ministry of Communications and

Information Tech., dt. 1-2-2007.

Ex. B6 X/c of Common Service centers FWD of Minutes, dt. 25-5-2007.

Ex. B7 X/c of letter issued by R1, dt. 25-7-2007.

Ex. B8 X/c of letter from R1, dt. 27-7-2007 to BEL.

Ex. B9 X/c of letter from R1 to BEL, Bangalore, dt. 27-7-2007.

Ex. B10 X/c of reply notice from R1’s advocate to the Commissioner of EDS

(e-sava), Hyderabad ,dt. 01-8-2007.

Ex. B11 X/c of letter from Commissioner of EDS (e-sava), Hyderabad to R1’s

Advocate, ,dt. 16-8-2007.

Ex. B12 X/c of letter to Commissioner of EDS (e-sava), Hyderabad from

R1’s Advocate, ,dt. 21-9-2007.

Ex. B13 X/c of letter from Joint Director, IT&C Department, Hyderabad, A.P. to

Convener, State Wide Rajiv Internet Villages Organisatiion, Prakasam

Dist. Dt. 20-6-2007.

Ex. B14 X/c of letter from R1 to complainant dt. 9-2-2008.

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1) Sri K. Upendraiah, Advocate, D.No. 13-182, Rangachary Street,

Chittoor

2) Sri V. Adinarayana Reddy, Advocate, DUA Associates, DUA

House, Plot No. 187-A, Road No. 13, Jublee Hills, Hyd. – 33.

1) Copy was made ready on :

2) Copy was dispatched on :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :

B.V.P. - - -