Order No.   13                                        Date : 18.02.2016.   

          This date is fixed for passing order on the maintainability of the case no. 191 of 2014 and the petition was heard on 28.01.2016 with contents in the petition that the complainant entered into a franchise agreement with the o.p. on 02.10.2012 and as per terms of the agreement the o.p. appointed the petitioner to sell the stocks from his retail shop and the petitioner invested Rs. 4 lacs out of total agreed expenses of  Rs. 11,65,000/- and the rest of Rs. 7,65,000/- was invested by the o.p. in order to set up the business of the petitioner. The o.p. is to provide necessary employees for the purpose of sub distribution of the products and after running the shop for a couple of months this petitioner observed that the sale generated from the shop was very poor and so the o.p. decided to discontinue the shop by a letter dated 11.6.2013 wherein the o.p. terminated the agreement dated 02.10.201. On the above facts the petitioner filed his complaint petition before this Forum praying for an order directing the o.p. to continue the business with the petitioner as per agreement dated 02.10.2012 and direct the o.p. to pay compensation of  Rs. 12 lacs and refund the deposited sum of the petitioner and the cost of litigation and cost of unfair trade practice.

          The o.p. appeared in the case and filed this non maintainability petition stating that this case is not maintainable as the agreement was a franchise agreement which comes under the purview of personal service  and the service being personal in nature, is not tenable before this Forum and it is he who hired the service and not this  petitioner. Ld. counsel referred before this Forum a judgment of State Commission, Goa, wherein the Commission decided that the franchisee agreement giving rise to dispute are not tenable before the Consumer Forum and so the instant case be dismissed as not maintainable.

          This Forum heard the ld. counsel for the petitioner as well as contents of his objection petition which are very vague. However, in the instant case the petitioner of this consumer case was a franchisee by virtue of the agreement between him and the o.p. and the service between them was nothing but personal service. The Goa State Commission referred two judgments of our National Commission of the year 1996 and 2002 wherein it has been decided that a franchisee holder cannot be held to have hired the service of the principle i.e., o.p. in the case. Thus the franchisee between the petitioner and the o.p. does not empower the petitioner to have hired the services of the franchisee holder and so not being a consumer and the dispute not being a consumer dispute, the non maintainability petition is allowed and hence, the CC 191 of 2014 is dismissed as not maintainable.