Order no.3               Date:09.01.2024

Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no.1/petitioner is present.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present and files written objection. Copy served.

The Misc. Application dated 28.11.2023 filed by the opposite party no.1/petitioner on the ground of maintainability of the case is taken up for hearing along with its written objection.

Perused. Considered. Heard both sides.

It has been alleged by the opposite party no.1/petitioner that the complainant is not a consumer in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The services availed by the complainant were limited to the extent of his tenure at the acting school. That a part, as per agreement between the parties, the work to be done were of the nature of business partnership. The parties to the agreement agreed to share profit and loss and for such, business skill of both parties would be needed to do their job as per terms of the agreement. The complainant invested some amount of money into the production of the Film, which is the business of the opposite party no.1/petitioner by signing an agreement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.07.2019. The said agreement/MOU dated 07.07.2019 clearly shows ‘commercial purpose’ of the parties thereto. So, by no stretch of imagination the complainant can be termed as a ‘consumer’ in terms of the Act. Therefore, the complaint case is not maintainable in law.

In reply Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant had an aspiration to become an actor. Knowing such aspiration, the opposite party no.1/petitioner who runs an acting school demanded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh) only from the complainant in order to provide service to him by giving him opportunity to act in a lead role of a film to be produced by opposite party no.1 under the banner “Prince Entertainment International”. Accordingly, the mother of the complainant, pro-forma opposite party herein, paid Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh) only to the opposite party no.1 on 01.07.2019. The complainant denies that there was any agreement/MOU between the complainant and opposite party no.1/petitioner executed on 07.07.2019. The complainant alleges that opposite party no.1 being in a higher bargaining position, on 04.07.2019 produced a pre-printed MOU containing set clauses, terms and conditions and the complainant and pro-forma opposite party had no other choice but to put their signatures on it as they had already paid a huge amount of money to opposite party no.1. According to the complainant he has never paid any money for the purpose of business to opposite party no.1. The money was paid as consideration of the service which the opposite party no.1 promised to render to him as stated in the complaint application.

On scrutiny of the record we find that opposite party no.1/petitioner has not submitted any agreement or Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.07.2019 which he mentioned in the Misc. Application.

Whereas, the complainant submitted a Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.07.2019 executed between complainant and opposite party no.1 and the same was authenticated by the Notary on 09.07.2019.

The alleged allegation raised by the complainant with regard to MOU dated 04.07.2019 can only be adjudicated on the touch stone of evidence of both parties. Only after perusal of evidence of the parties, the Commission would be able to adjudicate whether the amount of money paid by the complainant and pro-forma opposite party no.2 is for business purpose or as consideration of service to be rendered by the opposite party no.1.

In the above circumstances, prior to adjudication on the basis of evidence of both parties that the complainant was made to sign on a pre-printed MOU or he signed the same voluntary, it cannot be held that the case is not maintainable in law.

By filing the Misc. Application, the opposite party no.1 deliberately tried to cause delay in disposal of the complaint case.

The Misc. Application filed by opposite party no.1/petitioner lacks merit and is liable to be rejected.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the Misc. Application dated 28.11.2023 filed by the opposite party no.1/petitioner stands dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only.