For Complainant         :           Sri Sunil Kumar Mohanty, Advocate.

For Op No.1 & 2          :           Sri Gopal Krishna Mohanty, A/R.​

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he was appointed as authorised service franchise for Gionee mobiles by OP.1 with extended agreement dt.09.12.2015 but the said agreement was terminated by OP.1 on 13.09.2016 without assigning any reason and the Gionee ID of the complainant was blocked on 25.09.2016 by the OP.1.  It is submitted that in order to carry Gionee franchise, the complainant had invested Rs.10.00 lacs towards infrastructure by availing loans but due to cancellation of franchise he is in a financial hardship and is not able to repay the loans.  It is further submitted that he issued registered notice dt.12.10.2016 to the Ops through his Advocate but they did not prefer to reply.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.10.00 lacs which includes compensation and cost of infrastructure development etc. to the complainant

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint contending that the complainant is not their consumer as he has neither purchased any goods nor hired any service but a business agreement was signed between the OP.1 and the complainant.  Denying such a huge investment was made by the complainant for Gionee service centre, the Ops contended that the complainant did not work as per Company agreement and he was found  involved in some wrong activity at his service centre premises.  It is further contended that Gionee brand Auditor had penalized the complainant but he has failed to show correction even after lot of correspondences.  The Ops contended that the legal notice of the complainant was duly replied vide reply dt.06.12.2016 and thus denying any negligence, inaction and casual approach by them, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their respective cases and the complainant has filed affidavit.  Heard from the complainant through his A/R and perused the documents available on record.

4.                     In this case, the complainant was awarded with authorised service franchise of Gionee mobile on 09.12.2015 by OP.1 through an agreement but according to the complainant the agreement was cancelled on 13.09.2016 without assigning any reason by OP.1 and the Gionee ID of the complainant was also blocked on 25.09.2016. The complainant stated that he had invested Rs.10.00 lacs on different counts in order to run the service Centre but due to cancellation of agreement by OP.1, he suffered loss.  The Ops have challenged the status of the complainant as a consumer in this case and cited different reasons for cancellation of agreement.  In the above premises, before going to other merits of the case, we are inclined to decide the preliminary issue in this case at the first instance.

5.                     It is seen that the parties have entered into a franchise agreement on 09.12.2015 and through that agreement the complainant was awarded with service centre of Gionee mobiles.  The Ops stated that due to violation of terms of agreement, they cancelled the agreement on due process.    It is found that this is a term of contract casting obligation on the part of the parties to scrupulously follow its terms.  The Ops stated that the complainant was found involved in some wrong activity at his service centre premises and the OPs have mentioned the said fact in the reply to the notice of the Advocate of the complainant as well as in the counter.  From the above facts and circumstances, it was clearly ascertained that a business agreement was signed between the parties.  For such business, as the complainant had invested a huge amount, it involves profit.  The complainant in no case has hired the services of the Ops for consideration.  Due to such commercial agreement signed between the parties, the complainant cannot represent himself as a consumer of the Ops.

6.                     From the above facts, we come to the conclusion that the complainant is neither a consumer of the OPs nor we find any merit in this case for which the case of the complainant needs dismissal.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)