BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.1538/2006 against C.D.No.29 of 2006, District Forum, Guntur.
Between:
Aramex India Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by its Manager,10/3, R.T. 1-8-861,
Street No.5, Prakashnagar,
Begumpet, Hyderabad.
..Appellant/
Opp.party No.1
And
1. Kola Renuka Devi, W/o Srinivasu,
Srinivasa Enterprises, Door No. 4-1-12/A,
1st Line, Ramannapet, Kortiepadu, Guntur.
2. Ravi Associates, rep. by its Proprietor,
Radha Krishna, Door No. 6-7-29,
7/1, Arundelpet, Guntur. Respondent/
Complainant &
O.P.No.2.
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s Mirza Safiulla Baig
Counsel for the Respondents: : Mr. P.V.Ramana_R1.
R2 served.
QUORUM:SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND NINE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri K.Satyanand, Hon’ble Member.)
***
Opposite party No.1 filed this appeal challenging the order of the District Forum, Guntur in C.D.29/2006 against it.
The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:
The complainant, a person, who claimed to have been conferred with the rights of franchise by opposite party No.1 under a franchise agreement dated 16-1-2001 embarked upon courier business in terms thereof. In that regard, she claimed to have deposited Rs. 25,000/- through a D.D. under a proper receipt. While things stood thus, it is complained that the first opposite party all of a sudden stopped sending loads to the complainant without assigning reasons whatsoever and on the other hand, she came to know, loads were being sent to another agent, opposite party No.2. It is the grievance of the complainant that this unilateral action without any reason whatsoever was illegal and the franchiser, opposite party No.1, had no right to withhold the deposit without returning the same to the complainant. She further maintained that by this illegal action on the part of opposite party No.1, she sustained business loss and therefore was entitled to claim compensation. Accordingly she claimed to have issued a notice with a response of refusal. So the complainant filed the complaint for various relief’s set forth therein.
Opposite party No.2 was merely a formal party and it was opposite party No.1 that contested the case by filing a version. The basic facts as to the agreement and factum of deposit etc. were admitted. Opposite party No.1 however filed counter saying that the complainant failed to account for the amounts collected to a tune of Rs.44,000/- and odd as on 30-11-2004 and was found outstanding due an amount of Rs.19,000 and odd. Opposite party thereafter made a claim for the said amount along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. in terms of the agreement. Opposite party No.1 contested the case of the complainant more importantly on the ground that the complainant cannot style herself as a ‘consumer” and the dispute raised cannot also be classified as ‘consumer dispute’ and as a consequence it was contended that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction. It was alleged that the complainant had suppressed all these facts and came up with this false case.
In support of her case, the complainant filed her own affidavit as also documents marked as Exs.A1 to A6. The first opposite party too filed affidavit and got marked Ex. B1.
The District Forum brushed aside all the pleas of opposite party No.1 including the question of jurisdiction and awarded the relief sought by the complainant substantially in its entirety.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present appeal mainly urging that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction as the rights have come to be agitated by the complainant on the basis of a franchise agreement which did not strike a relationship of consumer and trader/service provider but on the other hand some sort of commercial relationship outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act.
Heard the counsel for appellant. Respondent/complainant counsel also filed written arguments.
In view of the contentions raised by the contesting parties herein, the following points arise for determination.
1. Whether the District Forum was endowed with jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in question?
2. Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?
Admittedly the dispute raised by the complainant in these proceedings stems out of a franchise agreement by virtue of which the complainant occupied the status of a franchisee while opposite party No.1 answered the description of franchisor. The law relating to the status of the parties and jural relationship between them under such an agreement has been articulated at length in FA 1743/2005 by A.P. State Commission relying upon the decisions rendered by the National Commission. It is categorically held in the said decision that the cause of action stemming from a franchise agreement does not fall within the definition of either sale of goods or availment of services so as to correspondingly mean ‘consumer’ and trader or service provider as the case may be. When once these two essentials are found absent, the case agitated by the parties thereof does not partake the nature of a consumer dispute. In this regard, it was held by Hon’ble Justice Sri. D.Appa Rao as follows:
“The District Forum cannot extend its jurisdiction to determine the
dispute in regard to a franchisee agreement’.
It is therefore, crystal clear that the District Forum exercised jurisdiction where it had none. This infirmity cuts at the very root of jurisdiction of District forum. In view of the finding given above, we feel that there is a good ground to overturn the order of the District Forum as it is not sustainable in law.
Accordingly this appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum but without costs in the circumstances of the case. It is however observed that the complainant is at liberty to resort to such course of action as is available to her otherwise under law, if so advised.
MEMBER.
(KS)
MEMBER.
(RLNR)
Dated 02-6-2009.
