DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024.

PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.

            : SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                               : SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.

                                                                                                   DATE OF FILING: 30.01.2023.                                              

CC/31/2023

Roshan Alex, Aged 43 Years,                                                       - Complainant

S/O.Alex K.V, 43/209,

Mattakkal,

Pallivathukkal,

Coimbatore Rd.,

Chandranagar,

Palakkad-678 007.

(By Adv. Redson Skaria)                                                             

                                                                                Vs

 1.          Dr.Praveen K.P,                                                                                              -Opposite Parties

Chairman And Managing Director,

Safe And Strong Business Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,

Adam Bazar Building,

Thrissur-680 001.

Currently Residing @

Dr.Praveen K.P.,

S/O.K.K.Pushkaran,

Kaipully House,

Veluthur P.O.,

Thrissur-680 012.

2.            Bejoy Achuthan.C,

                Bejoy Nivas,

                Mundakkode,

                Chandranagar P.O,

                Palakkad-678 007.

3.            The Branch Manager,

                Safe And Strong Business Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,

                2^nd Floor, Surya Complex,

                (Nr) Mission School, Tb Road,

                Palakkad-678 014.

                (All OPs are ex-parte)

                                              ORDER

BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.

1.       Pleadings of the complainant.   

The complainant entered into various agreements with the 1^st opposite party and invested Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty two Lakhs and Fifty thousand only) in the “Business Solutions and services” of the 1^st opposite party.  As per the agreements, the complainant was entitled to get monthly return on the said amount.  When the first opposite party defaulted the payments, he approached this Commission seeking return of Rs.22,50,000/- with interest @ 6.5% p.a. along with a compensation of 10 lakhs for mental agony and trauma apart from Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.      Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  In between, the complainant filed I.A.No.73/2023 seeking attachment of movable properties in the name of the opposite parties, which was allowed by this Commission.  Notice to the 1^st opposite party was returned with endorsement “gate locked”.  Notice to the 2^nd opposite party was served on 06.02.2023.  Notice to the 3^rd opposite party got returned with endorsement “Address incomplete”. As the 2^nd opposite party failed to file version within the statutory period, he was set ex-parte.  Though the paper publication was taken out against the 1^st & the 3^rd opposite parties, they did not enter appearance or file version and hence, were also set ex-parte.

3.      The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A4 as evidence.  Ext.A1 is the agreement dated 07.05.2020, for Rs.6,50,000/-, Ext.A2 is the receipt for Rs.6,50,000/- dated 20.03.2020, Ext.A3 is the receipt dated 12.05.2020, for Rs.3,00,000/- and Ext.A4 is the receipt issued by the opposite party for Rs.13,00,000/- dated 04.07.2020.

4.      As explained in the above paragraph, the complainant has marked the agreement for Rs.6,50,000/- and receipts for Rs.22,50,000/-.  From the wordings of the agreement executed between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party, it is evident that the amounts paid by the complainant is as “goodwill security” for working as the franchisee of the 1^st opposite party and return offered is for working as a franchisee as per the agreement.  Said Goodwill security cannot be termed as ‘consideration’ as contemplated under the Act.

5.      Engagement as a franchisee is a business proposition for making profit and hence, cannot be taken to be a consumer-service provider relation. This is only a business dispute inter-se parties to this complaint.  So, the complainant will not come under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as provided in the Section (2)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

6.      In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open court on this the 22^nd day of February, 2024.

                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                               VINAY MENON .V,

                             PRESIDENT.

                                Sd/-

                                                                KRISHNANKUTTY N .K,

                                                                              MEMBER.

                                  APPENDIX

            Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext.A1: Agreement dated 07.05.2020 between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant.

Ext.A2: Receipt dated 20.03.2020 issued by the 1^st opposite party and the complainant.

Ext.A3:  Receipt dated 12.05.2020 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.A4:  Receipt voucher of Rs.2,50,000/- dated 04.07.2020 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

Cost : Nil.

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission ProcedureRegulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.