| Complaint Case No. CC/09/54 |
| | | | 1. Kaithoju Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkataram Narsaiah, R/o. Main Road, Yellandu, Khammam Dist. | | R/o. H.No. 2-5-65, Main Road, Old Bus Stand, Yellandu | | Khammam District. | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ...........Complainant(s) | | Versus | | 1. M/s. Bharath Electronics Ltd., Hyderabad & 2 others | | H.No.5-9-240 to 244, IInd Floor, Abid Road, | | Hyderabad | | Andhra Pradesh | | 2. M/s. Radiant Info Systems High Values Pvt. Ltd., | | Flat No.302, H.No.6-3-1219/24, Ujwal Bavishya Bhavan, above Karnataka Bank, Street No.4, Uma Nagar, Begumpet, | | Hyderabad | | Andhra Pradesh | | 3. M/s. Radiant Info Systems Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director, Bangalore | | Regd. Office no.2227/1, Division No.52/A, 9th Main, B-SK-11 Stage, Main Branch, Bangalore - -560070 | | Bangalore | | Karnataka |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 3rd day of January, 2011. CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L. - Member C.C. No. 54/2009 Between: Kaithoju Satyanarayana, S/o Venkatram Narsaiah, Age:39years, Occu: business, r/o H.No.2-5-65, Main Road, Old Bus Stand, Yellandu, Khammam District. …Complainant And 1) M/s Bharath Electronics Ltd., 5-9-240 to 244, II floor, Abid Road, Hyderabad-I, rep. by its Director. 2) M/s Radiant Info systems High Values Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director, Flat No.302, H.No.6-3-1219/24, Ujwal Bavishya Bhavan, above Karnataka Bank, Street No.4, Uma Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3) M/s Radiant Info system Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director, Sri C.Narayana Charyulu, Regd. Office at No.2227/1, Divn. No.52/A, 9th Main, B-SK-11 stage, Main Branch, Bangalore-560070. …Opposite parties. This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Brahmaiah, Advocate for complainant, Sri B.H.Kishore Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri N.Ch.Srinivasacharuylu, Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3 ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- ORDER (Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member) This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is appointed as a franchisee by entering into an agreement with the opposite parties for establishment of kiosk (Internet Center) under Rajiv Internet Project, launched by the Government of A.P. on Self-employment Scheme. The Government of A.P. has authorized the opposite parties No.1 to 3 for implementation of Rajiv Internet Project in 5550 locations in 14 districts in semi urban and rural areas to provide transparent services and to provide employment under self employment scheme. For which, the Government of A.P. and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 were given vide publicity and calling upon the intending persons to run Rajiv Internet Centers and as per the prospectus of said project information document, they will provide 64 services for grade A location on deposit of Rs.2.25 lakhs and as per their instructions the complainant had paid Rs.500/- through D.D. bearing No. 146932 on 08-11-2005 towards application fee and again he paid Rs.1000/- by way of D.D. towards license fee for confirmation of allotment. After receipt of confirmation letter dated 20-01-2006, the complainant paid Rs.2.25 lakhs to the opposite party No.2 through D.D. bearing No.074541, those amounts were received by the opposite party No.2 vide receipt No.3763 dated 20-03-2006, after receipt of the same the opposite party No.2 the agreement, which was signed by the opposite party No.3. As per the said agreement opposite party No.3 is the licensor and the complainant is the licensee. Then only the complainant established Rajiv Internet Center at Sudimalla Village by obtaining the loan from the Andhra Bank. However, they failed to give 64 services as assured, only given one service i.e. collection of electricity bills. As per the prospectus, the franchisee/licensee can get Rs.2/- per bill, accordingly the complainant got Rs.1000/- approximately per month, due to which, the complainant incurred loss of Rs.10,000 per month towards expenses since the date of establishment i.e. from September 2006 to June 2008, it amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant further submitted that he approached the opposite parties No.1 and 2 in the month of February for refund of deposited amount and as such the opposite parties given a message on 27-02-2008 by agreeing to refund the amount in two installments i.e. on 31-03-2008 and 31-09-2008. However, no amounts were refunded and therefore issued legal notice dated 06-04-2009. Even after receipt of legal notice, there is no reply from the opposite parties No.1 and 2. The opposite party No.3 given an evasive reply and as such filed the complaint by praying to direct the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to refund Rs.2.25 lakhs together with interest @12% p.a. and Rs.2,10,000/- towards damages from September 2006 to June 2008 @Rs.10,000/- per month and costs. 2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed exhibits A1 to A13. 3. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counters by denying the averments made in the complaint. 4. In the counter, the opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no contract between the opposite party No.1 and the complainant. They entered into a contract only with the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and as such the complainant can not claim the opposite party No.1 on deficiency of service and as per the CP Act, the complainant is not a consumer and there is no maintainability to file the present complaint and also submitted that under this program the opposite party No.1 has to provide technical assistance for implementation of program under Rajiv Internet project i.e. to provide services such as Installation, implementation, operation and maintenance of project only. It is the liability of the Government of A.P. to pursue the other government agencies, departments, financial institutions, BSNL and banks etc. for providing 64 services and it is the duty of the Government of A.P. to provide above mentioned services to the Kiosk booths (Franchises). The opposite party No.1 further submitted that it has not given any publicity regarding the alleged project and did not give any prospectus nor promised to provide 64 services on payment of Rs.2.25 lakhs and the opposite party No.1 has not received any amounts from the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 5. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 filed counter by admitting that the government of A.P. and the opposite parties No.1 & 2 have given vide publicity in the newspapers with regard to Rajiv Internet Project and as per the prospectus, issued by them, they will provide 64 services to the Kiosks (Internet Center) and also admitted that the complainant paid Rs.2.25 lakhs, which is non- refundable amount under agreement and as per the said agreement the complainant is the licensee and the opposite party No.3 is the licensor and the complainant was appointed as franchisee of Rajiv Internet Village at Sudimalla Village. The opposite parties No.2 & 3 also submitted that the complainant collected the electricity bills from the villagers on commission basis and as such the relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties No.1 & 2 is a commercial transaction and as such the complainant is not a consumer and also contended that whatever services rendered by the Government of A.P. the same will be rendered to the complainant by the opposite parties. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on their part and they are not liable to pay Rs.2.25 lakhs, paid towards non refundable amount and damages also. The opposite parties No.2 & 3 mentioned that in the month of February 2008, they were agreed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.2.25 lakhs in two installments. The complainant well aware about whatever services rendered by the Government and the same will be rendered by the opposite parties and as such there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 6. In support of their averments, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 filed written arguments with all most all the same averments as mentioned in their written statements. The opposite party No.1 filed the judgment of the National Commission, given in The General Manager, Madras Telephones and Others Vs R.Kannan CPR Vol. IV-1984 (1) and the judgment of SCDRC, Kerala in Pottom K. Devarajan Vs Chairman, Telecom Commission, Government of India and others CPR Vol.I 1997(1). 7. In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is, Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? As per the averments of complaint & counter, it is clear that the complainant was provided Rajiv Internet Village Project under the Scheme announced by the Government of A.P. to extend the services to the door steps of the people and as per the rules and regulations stipulated, the complainant fulfilled all the formalities laid by the Government of A.P. and deposited required amount of Rs.2.25 lakhs through D.D. on 16-03-2006 and entered into an agreement to provide services under the said program. It is the duty of the opposite parties to provide technical and other services and also it is the duty of the opposite parties to provide all the 64 services as the complainant obtained the loan from the bank and started the project under self-employment scheme and it is the case of the complainant that after installation of project, the opposite parties have given only one service i.e. collection of electricity bills and failed to render other services i.e. 64 services as agreed by them and the complainant has only getting Rs.1000/- per month as commission on collection of electricity bills and as such the complainant incurred huge loss due to non-providing of proper services by the opposite parties and as such the complainant approached the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to refund the deposit amount and the opposite parties No.1 & 2, who agreed to refund the amount failed to do so and as such the complainant approached this Forum after issuance of legal notice on 06-04-2009. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is the duty of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to provide proper technical and other services as assured to the complainant to run the kiosk successfully but the opposite parties, who agreed to provide 64 services to the complainant, collecting Rs.2.25 lakhs, failed to do so and caused monitory loss to the complainant. The complainant, who obtained the project under self employment scheme for eking his livelihood as per the assurances of the Government of A.P. and as such the complainant is a consumer and according to the CP Act, the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties is not commercial transaction as defined under Section 2 (h) of CP Act. Therefore, the complainant started the project under self-employment program purely for eking his livelihood and moreover the complainant deposited Rs.2.25 lakhs by obtaining bank loan and due to non providing of 64 services by the opposite parties the complainant incurred huge loss and as there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, the complaint is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to get relief under the C.P. Act. The stand taken by the opposite parties No.1 in this regard and the citation relied by them will not come to their rescue and as they have stated that the project launched with the assistance of Government of A.P. and the opposite parties No.2 & 3. Therefore the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to their acts and as such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complaint by holding that the complainant is entitled to get the relief under the C.P. Act. 8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to refund the deposit amount of Rs.2.25 lakhs to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 20-03-2006 and further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards damages for causing monitory loss and Rs.2000/- towards costs of the litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 3rd day of January, 2011. President Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant and opposite parties: -None- Exhibits marked for complainant:- Ex.A1:- Project Information document. Ex.A2:- Letter dt.06-05-2005 addressed by the Director, e-seva, Hyderabad. Ex.A3:- Letter dt.29-06-2005 addressed by the Director, BEL. Ex.A4:- Filled Application form. Ex.A5:- Receipt dt.19-05-2006 for Rs.1000/-. Ex.A6:- Letter dt.23-12-2005 addressed by the Sr. Manager of opposite party No2. Ex.A7:- Letter dt.20-01-2006 addressed by the opposite party No.2. Ex.A8:- D.D. bearing No.074541, dt.16.03.2006 for Rs.2,25,000/- in favour of Radiant Info Systems. Ex.A9:- Receipt dt.20-03-2006 for Rs.2,25,000/-. Ex.A10:-Correspondence made by the opposite party No.3 on e-mail. Ex.A11:-Office copy of legal notice dt.06-04-2009 along with postal acknowledgements. Ex.A12:-Returned unserved postal cover, posted to the opposite party No.2 with postal acknowledgement. Ex.A13:-Reply notice dt.22-04-2009, issued by the opposite party No.3. Exhibits marked for opposite party:- - Nil - President Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam. | |
