2. I.C.I.C.I. Bank,

     Rep. by its Branch Manager,

     Vijayawada I town branch,

     Vijayawada.                                              … Opposite parties

      This complaint coming up before us for hearing on                      01-12-11,  Smt A. Sridevi, advocate for complainant and of Sri M. Seetaram, advocate for opposite party are having on record, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

        This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

2.  The averments of the complaint are in brief are as follows:

        Complainant arranged borrowers from different places in the command area, Guntur district to the opposite parties for purpose of availing loans on the basis of credit franchiseee.   Opposite parties sanctioned an overall credit facility under farmer franchisee programme for lending through borrower arranged by the complainant as service provider.  Complainant and 1^st opposite party entered into credit franchisee agreement. Later  1^st opposite party executed credit arrangement letter and service provider on 31-12-06 accepting the terms and conditions stipulated therein.  Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with 2^nd opposite party on 28-12-06 as cumulative deposit with interest quarterly rests @8% p.a., for a period of 13 months.   The said deposit was due on 22-01-08.    The opposite parties agreed to pay interest on the deposit amount including collection commission towards the services rendered by complainant to the 1^st opposite party.   Complainant introduced so many borrowers to 1^st opposite party as its customers for availing the services under credit franchisee facility out of the maturity value cumulative fixed deposit of Rs.5,44,182/-  made by complainant.  2^nd opposite party issued certificate of quantum deposit dated 28-12-06.  Complainant extended all his co-operation and served the opposite party by providing customers as per the agreement. In fact the complainant has to receive the maturity deposit along with payment of total collection commission and interest for the period from 22-01-08 to 23-01-10.   But the complainant received matured value of Rs.5,44,709/- only with collection commission partly.   Complainant pointed out and brought to the notice of opposite parties about non payment of interest and remaining amount of collection commission.   Thus the credit franchisee agreement has come to an end and the complainant was disappointed and discouraged.   

        Repayments were made by some of the customers.  Complainant has furnished the respective receipts only in case of such customers who made part payment.   The opposite party is having receipts for the customers who made full payment.   Thus the complainant did business for the quantum of collections Rs.15,00,000/- and the commission for an amount of Rs.45,000/- on the above said collections is to be paid by the opposite parties upto 22-01-08 as per the terms.   Thus the interest is due to pay for the period from 23-01-08 to 01-02-10 i.e., Rs.65,000/-.   Complainant wandered around the office of the opposite party for the last one year and undergone mental cruelty and loss of expenditure which costed him for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as a matter of compensation.   The complainant is also entitled for the legal expenses of Rs.15,000/-.   Thus in all the opposite party is liable to pay total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant.    Hence the complaint.  

3.     Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their version which is in brief is as follows:

        The allegations mentioned in the complaint are false and untenable.   It is true that the complainant and opposite parties have entered into credit franchisee agreement and subsequently 1^st opposite party executed a credit arrangement letter and service provided on 31-12-06 accepting the terms and conditions.   It is also true that the complainant has deposited Rs.5,00,000/- as per the terms and conditions there under. 

        The complainant did business for the quantum of collections for Rs.15,00,000/- and commission for Rs.45,000/- clearly establishes that the complainant is not a consumer as he did business with opposite party bank which is a commercial transaction.   The other allegations that the complainant is entitled for interest of Rs.65,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards legal expenses and Rs.45,000/- towards commission are absolutely false.   The complainant is also a co-applicant along with borrower under the scheme and the complainant is equally responsible along with the borrower.    The complainant deposited Rs.5,00,000/- towards security for prompt repayment by borrowers.   The non payment if any by the borrower partly or fully, the opposite parties are entitled to recover dues from the deposit.  The opposite parties are herewith enclosing chart disclosing the names and due of the borrowers introduced by complainant.  The complainant is still due a sum of Rs.2,70,099/- by 05-02-11. The complaint is vexatious and opposite parties are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- under section 26 of C.P.Act.  There are neither merits nor bonafides in filing the complaint.   Hence the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.     

4.    In support of their versions complainant and opposite parties filed their affidavits.  

5.    On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-8 are marked.   On behalf of opposite parties Ex.B-1 was marked.

6.      Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and whether the complaint is a consumer complaint?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

7.   POINT No.1:-   It is not in dispute that the complainant company is franchisee of opposite party bank and complainant and 1^st opposite party have entered into a credit franchisee agreement.   As a franchisee the complainant has to introduce borrowers to 1^st opposite party as customers for availing the services under credit franchisee facility.    It is also not in dispute that complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in terms of the agreement  towards the security and that opposite party has issued a quantum deposit receipt Ex.A-3 (copy).   It is mentioned in the complaint that the complainant did business to a tune of Rs.15,00,000/- and for the commission of Rs.45,000/-.  Complainant is not a borrower and is only a service provider.  Opposite party bank is also a service provider.  Thus the present dispute is in between two service providers.    

8.    In the decision reported in 2011 (1) CPR 191 the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in a case between Taj Television (India) Private Limited vs. Veena Cable Network, held

                “Disputes between “service providers” is not a                “consumer dispute” since it is not between “service provider”

        of a “consumer”. 

9.     Therefore it cannot be said that the complainant is a consumer and that the dispute is a consumer dispute.   As such it can safely concluded that the complaint does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and the same is not maintainable under the Act.    Accordingly this point is answered against the complainant.

10.    POINT No.2:-    It is mentioned in the complaint that some of the borrowers paid the entire amount and some of the borrowers have made part payment of the borrowed amount.   It is also mentioned in the complaint that the complainant received matured value of Rs.5,44,709/- only with collection commission partly and demanded for the remaining amount of commission.   Therefore according to it complainant received part of collection commission.   In another breath complainant mentioned that he did business for the quantum of collection of Rs.15,00,000/- and the commission for Rs.45,000/- and that opposite party failed to pay the collection commission of Rs.45,000/-.  Thus there is contradiction regarding the quantum of commission due to complainant by the opposite party.   The complainant deposited Rs.5,00,000/- under Ex.A-3 towards the security of the amounts due and payable by the borrowers.   Therefore it is established law that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor and that the opposite party bank is entitled to adjust the balance amount payable by borrowers against the complainants account.   As seen from Ex.A-6 copy of registered notice got issued by the complainant to opposite parties complainant demanded for payment of interest on the maturity deposit for the period from 22-01-08 to 20-07-09 and also mentioned in the said notice that the opposite party has not paid the commission for the services provided by him. The amount of commission due is not mentioned in the said notice.  Complainant has not filed the credit franchisee agreement entered between the complainant and 1^st opposite party in order to prove his allegations regarding the liability of opposite parties for payment of interest and the amount of commission.   As seen from Ex.B-1 some of the borrowers have not paid the entire borrowed amount and there are dues to be paid by some borrowers and according to opposite parties an amount of Rs.2,70,099/- is still due by 05-02-11 by the borrowers for which the complainant is also liable.  Complainant has not mentioned the amount due by the borrowers but admittedly mentioned in the complaint that some of the customers made part payment.    Therefore it can safely conclude that some of the borrowers mentioned in Ex.B-1 have not paid the entire amount due to the opposite parties for which the complainant is also liable.  Further as already stated above the complainant has not filed the credit franchisee agreement in order to prove his allegations against the opposite parties and thus complainant failed to prove the allegations made against the opposite parties.   Accordingly we find no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.   Accordingly this point is answered.

11.    POINT No.3:-   In view of the foregoing discussion on points 1 and 2,  the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

In the result the complaint is dismissed. But in the circumstances of case, each party shall bear their own costs.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 9^th day of              December, 2011.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For opposite parties :  

                                                                              PRESIDENT