Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint was filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.43,914/- (comprising of deposit amount of Rs.16,300/- : interest of Rs.3,114/- : Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony : Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.4,500/- towards expenses) and for costs of the complaint. 

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The opposite parties issued notification dated 06-06-09 for allotment of ATB (any time booking) agencies.  The complainant had applied for the same at Kolluru of Tenali mandal and the same was accepted by the opposite parties  under sanction orders  dated 08-01-10. Since then the complainant did business by selling tickets.  As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the license period is only for 3 years and as per the terms complainant paid an amount of Rs.16,300/- to the opposite parties towards security deposit.  Complainant ran his agency from 29-01-10 to 03-03-11 as per the directions of the opposite parties and there is no misappropriation of funds during that period.  Due to ill health, the complainant was unable to run his agency and constrain to close his business.  At this venture the 2^nd opposite party conducted meeting on 05-05-11 at Guntur ATB Agents and Depot Managers and announced that if any agent intended to cancel their agencies must inform the same in writing on or before 12-05-11.  Accordingly on 11-05-11 complainant gave representation to the 1^st opposite party for cancellation of his agency narrating the above facts and requested the 1^st opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.16,300/- deposited by him at the time of allotment of agency, for which the 1^st opposite party accepted and cancelled the agency of the complainant and received the balance tickets from the complainant and endorsed the same on the requisition letter of the complainant.  Subsequently complainant approached the opposite parties several times for refund of his deposit amount, but they did not do so and postponing the same on one pretext or the other.  While things stood thus on 20-09-11 the complainant received show cause notice issued by 2^nd opposite party and shocked to know the contents of the same.  Immediately on 21-09-11 complainant got issued reply for the same through registered post.  But there is no response from opposite parties and did not return the deposited amount of Rs.16,300/- to the complainant.  Thus due to the acts of the opposite parties complainant suffered mental agony, physical strain and loss of income.  Hence the complaint.              

3.      The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties have field their version which is in brief is as follows : 

          Most of the allegations in the complaint are false and misleading and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The complaint is not maintainable at Law. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  It is true that on 08-01-10 the complainant was appointed as online ATB (Authorised Ticket Booking) agent at Kolluru, Tenali Mandal, and online connection was given to the complainant to run the business at the allotted point. Accordingly the complainant and 2^nd opposite party signed on the agreement dated 19-03-10.  The opposite parties specifically denied that 2^nd opposite party conducted a meeting on 05-05-11 at Guntur for ATB Agents and Depot Managers and announced that if any agent intended to cancel their agencies must be inform the same in writing on or before 12-05-11.  The opposite parties also denying that on 11-05-11 the complainant gave representation to 1^st opposite party for cancellation of his agency.  2^nd opposite party never received any representation from the complainant for cancellation of his agency and did not accept the request of the complainant.  The complainant took the agency for doing business.  Hence the complaint would not come under the perview of Consumer Protection Act, since the complainant has not taken the agency under self employment.  The transaction between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party is commercial one.  There is no consumer relationship between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party and the complainant is not a consumer to the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant violated the agreement conditions 33 and 50.  Due to the breach of contract by the complainant, the security deposit paid by complainant was forfeited by the opposite party Corporation.  The above dispute is purely civil nature and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case.  Due to violation of contract on 13-09-11 the 2^nd opposite party issued show cause notice to the complainant for cancellation of agency and forfeiting the security deposit paid by him, but the complainant has not replied properly.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

4.      In support of their versions, complainant and opposite parties have failed their respective affidavits reiterating the same.  

5.      On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-7 are marked.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties.

6       Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning  

     of Consumer Protection Act  and the complaint is

     maintainable before this Forum.

        2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite

             parties?

        3.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

7.      POINT NO.1:      The case of the complainant is that on a notification by the opposite parties he applied for the ATB Agency at Kolluru of Tenali Mandal and the opposite parties have accepted and appointed him as ATB Agent at Kolluru for selling the tickets of opposite parties on commission basis, at the time of appointment he has deposited an amount of Rs.16,300/- towards security deposit with opposite parties and that the period of license given to him is for 3 years, that he ran his agency from 29-01-10 to 03-03-11 and due to ill health he could not run his agency and constrained to close his business, that on 05-05-11 2^nd opposite party conducted a meeting at Guntur for ATB Agents and Depot Managers in which he announced that if any agent intended to cancel their agencies, they must inform the same in writing on or before 12-05-11, and accordingly on 11-05-11 he gave representation to the 1^st opposite party for cancellation of his agency and requested to refund the amount of Rs.16,300/- deposited by him for which opposite parties have accepted and cancelled his agency and also received the balance tickets from him and endorsed to that effect on the requisition letter of the complainant, that subsequently inspite of his demands opposite parties failed to refund  the deposited amount and further issued a show cause notice on 20-09-11 for which he replied and thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

8.     The case of opposite parties is that the 2^nd opposite party did not conduct any meeting on 05-05-11 at Guntur for ATB Agents and Depot Managers, and did not announce that if any agent intended to cancel their agencies must inform the same in writing on or before 12-05-11 and that complainant did not give any presentation on 11-05-11 for cancellation of his agency, that the complainant took the agency for doing business and it is not under self employment, the transaction between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party is a commercial transaction, there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party and that the complainant is not a consumer to the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint is not maintainable, that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties, that complainant violated agreement conditions 33 and 50 and hence the security deposit was forfeited by the opposite party Corporation, that the dispute is purely Civil in nature and that this Forum has not jurisdiction, that due to violation of contract 2^nd opposite party issued show cause notice to complainant on 30-09-11 for cancellation of agency forfeiting the security deposit paid by him. 

9.     It is not in dispute that the complainant was appointed as Online Authorized Ticket Booking Agent at Kolluru, Tenali Mandal.  The complainant and 2^nd opposite party entered into an agreement for the appointment of complainant as ATB Agent under Ex.A-1.  On 11-05-11 complainant addressed a letter under Ex.A-2 to 1^st opposite party requesting him to cancel his agency as he was unable to do the same due to ill health and requested to refund the amount of Rs.16,300/- deposited by him.  1^st opposite party received Ex.A-2 letter from the complainant and received the unsold tickets from the complainant and made an endorsement to that effect on Ex.A-2.  Subsequently 2^nd opposite party issued show cause notice to the complainant under Ex.A-4 dated 13-09-11 stating that his agency will be cancelled and the security deposit paid by him will be forfeited to the Corporation,  since the complainant has not sold tickets till the date of show cause notice and caused much inconvenience to the passengers and violated the condition 50 of the agreement, for which complainant gave replay under Ex.A-5 wherein he has mentioned that 2^nd opposite party during the meeting conducted in May, 2011 announced that the ATB Agents can cancel their agencies before 12-05-11 and if they do so the deposits will be returned or otherwise the deposited can not be returned and that therefore he has given letter on 11-05-11 for cancellation of his agency as he could not continue the agency due to ill health.  Subsequently also complainant addressed a letter dated 29-01-12 to 2^nd opposite party under Ex.A-6 requesting to refund the deposited amount.

10.   Admittedly on 08-01-10 the complainant was appointed as Online Authorized Ticket Booking Agent at Kolluru , Tenali Mandal for selling the tickets of opposite party Corporation, and accordingly complainant and 2^nd opposite party entered into an agreement under Ex.A-1. 

As per clause 4 of Ex.A-1 agreement the agent will be paid commission at the rates indicated below:

                                                                Commission payable

                                                                Adult           child

a).  I.  For fare upto Rs.150/-                                Rs.5/-        Rs.2.50/-

          For fare above Rs.150/-                      Rs.10/-      Rs.5/-

Half of the above commission is eligible for child ticket. 

1. In case of GARUDA services where ever tickets are booked by ATB Agents, commission will be paid as indicated below : 

Thus as per the agreement Ex.A-1 the complainant was appointed as an Agent for selling tickets of the opposite party Corporation on commission basis.  Thus the complainant was entrusted with the job of providing service to the traveling public by selling the tickets of the opposite parties.  The opposite party Corporation is also a service provider to the traveling public.  Therefore the complainant is not a consumer of opposite party Corporation.  Both the complainant and opposite parties are service providers to the traveling public.

11.   In a decision reported in 2009 (3) CPR 114 (NC)  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, between Ashish Yadav and Gaurav Prasad and others, where in it was held,

“Complaint is not maintainable where complainant is not a consumer but a service provider to several consumers”.    

        In a decision reported in  2012(1) CPR 269 Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad, between Niranjanbhai T.Parekh and Ajaybhai Harshadbhai Shah wherein it was held,

    “If dispute between parties is not between service provider and consumer but rather two service providers in that eventuality complainants are not consumers”.

In the case on hand also the complainant as well as the opposite parties are service providers to the traveling public and the complainant is not a consumer of opposite party Corporation.  Therefore, the dispute in the case on hand is in between two service providers and the same is not a dispute between a consumer and service provider.  Hence the dispute is not a consumer dispute and it is not maintainable before this Forum in view of the above two decisions. This point is answered accordingly.   

12.    POINTS 2&3 :-   In view of the finding on point No.1, we cannot find deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, since the complaint is not a consumer, complaint it is not maintainable before this Forum.   Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

13.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  But in the circumstances of the case, each party shall bear their own costs. 

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 5^th day of July, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainants:

For Opposite Parties  : NIL

       PRESIDENT