State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. D. Adhilakshmi, W/O Nayudamma, ... vs Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Bangalore ... on 6 February, 2012
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.57/2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.116 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE Between 1. Smt. D. Adhilakshmi, W/o Nayudamma, Aged about 52 years, Business Residing at Karamchedu (V&M), Prakasam District. .. Appellant/complainant And 1. Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director C. Narayanacharyulu, 2227/1, Div. No.52A, 9th Main B.S.K. II Stage, Bangalore 560 070. 2. Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager K.Mohan Menon Flat No.301, S.V.S.Classic Residency, 6-3-853/2, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Respondents /opposite parties no.1&2 3.The Co-ordinator, Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Opposite I.T.C., Throvagunta Village & Post, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. Respondent/opposite party no.3 F.A.No.58/2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.117 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE Between P.Narasimha Rao, S/o. Venkata Seshaiah, Residing at Addanki, Pothavaram Post Nuthalapadu Mandaam, Prakasam District. ..Appellant/complainant And 1. Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director C. Narayanacharyulu, 2227/1, Divi No.52A, 9th Main B.S.K. II Stage, Bangalore 560 070. 2. Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager K.Mohan Menon Flat No.301, S.V.S.Classic Residency, 6-3-853/2, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Respondents /opposite parties no.1&2 3. The Co-ordinator, Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Opposite I.T.C., Throvagunta Village & Post, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. Respondent/opposite party no.3 F.A.No.59/2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.118 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE Between G.Narsimha Rao S/o Laxmaiah Hindu, aged about 45 years Occ: Business, R/o Opp:Syndicate Bank Marrella Village, Mundlamooru Mandal Prakasam District Appellant/complainant and 1. Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director C. Narayanacharyulu, 2227/1, Divi No.52A, 9th Main B.S.K. II Stage, Bangalore 560 070. 2. Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager K.Mohan Menon Flat No.301, S.V.S.Classic Residency, 6-3-853/2, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Respondents /opposite parties no.1&2 3. The Co-ordinator, Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Opposite I.T.C., Throvagunta Village & Post, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. Respondent/opposite party no.3 F.A.No.60/2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.119 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE Between K. Pavan Kumar, S/o. Koteshwara Rao, aged about 28 years Occ:Business, residing at Kothapeta village, Vetapalem Mandalam, Prakasam District. .. Appellant/complainant And 1. Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director C. Narayanacharyulu, 2227/1, Divi No.52A, 9th Main B.S.K. II Stage, Bangalore 560 070. 2. Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager K.Mohan Menon Flat No.301, S.V.S.Classic Residency, 6-3-853/2, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Respondents /opposite parties no.1&2 3.The Coordinator, Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Opposite I.T.C., Throvagunta Village & Post, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. Respondent/ OPno.3 F.A.No.61/2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.120 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE Between T. Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o. T.Veeraghava Reddy, aged about 35 years, Occ:Business, Residing at Pusapadu, Inkollu Mandalam,Prakasam District.. Appellant/complainant and 1. Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director C. Narayanacharyulu, 2227/1, Divi No.52A, 9th Main B.S.K. II Stage, Bangalore 560 070. 2. Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager K.Mohan Menon Flat No.301, S.V.S.Classic Residency, 6-3-853/2, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Respondents/opposite parties no.1&2 3. The Co-Ordinator, Radiant Infosystem (P) Ltd., Opposite I.T.C., Throvagunta Village & Post, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. Respondent/opposite party no.3 Counsel for the Appellant Sri M.Hari Babu Counsel for the Respondents Sri K.Gopal QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER Monday, the Sixth Day of February TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member )
1) These appeals are preferred by dissatisfied complainants against the orders of the District Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole on separate complaints seeking directions against the opposite parties to pay interest @ 12% pa on awarded amount from the date of deposit, so also, for payment of compensation for mental agony etc.
2) Since these appeals are preferred by the complainants against the very same opposite parties pertaining to common questions of facts and evidence arising out of similar order we are of the opinion that all these appeals can be disposed of by a common order.. For convenience sake, parties as arrayed in the complaints are referred to hereunder :
F.A.No.57/2010 is taken as lead case.
3. The complainant is an educated unemployee.
The opposite parties made publicity calling upon the interested persons to apply to operate Rajiv Internet Centre at various places. The complainant approached the opposite parties to start the same at Karamchedu village, Prakasam District under self employment for her livelihood and the opposite parties agreed for it and they also furnished project information document to the complainant for the proposed services 1 to 64. The opposite parties have directed the complainant to secure a building for establishment of the Internet Centre and so also to deposit a sum of `2,25,000/-
with them to provide the proposed services 1 to 64 to operate the Internet Centre at Karamchedu.
4. The complainant deposited `2,25,000/-
with the 2nd opposite party and secured the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/-, purchased furniture worth of Rs.45,000/- and also spent Rs.50,150/- for internal decorations of the building.
The opposite parties inspected the building, the arrangements made by the complainant for running such a centre, satisfied with the arrangements made by the complainant and allotted Rajiv Internet Centre at Karamchedu village in her favour. The opposite parties have provided one UPS, Computer, Scanner, Web Camera and Printer to operate such an Internet Centre at the said place.
5. The complainant has obtained a telephone connection to the said premises, along with Internet connection for running the centre. The opposite parties have provided only single service i.e., collection of electricity bills from the electricity consumers. For the remaining 63 services, the opposite parties have promised to provide the same within one month. The complainant also engaged one computer operator to run the centre.
Since, March 2007 the complainant has been running the centre for rendering single service only. She approached the opposite parties to provide the remaining 63 services as prescribed in their project information document.
The opposite parties have failed to provide the same and thus the complainant sustained heavy loss. Therefore, she got issued legal notice on 13.02.2008 to the opposite parties putting forth her grievance with a request to do the needful. But there was no response from the Ops and hence the complaint to refund deposit amount of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest @ 24% pa from the date of deposit till realization, such rate of interest on shop advance of Rs.10,000/- from May, 2006 till realization, Rs.1,500/- per month towards rent with such rate of interest, Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.45,000/- towards cost of furniture, Rs.2,000/- per month towards salary of the operator from Marcy, 2007 to March, 2008, Rs.24,137/- towards electricity consumption charges and telephone from May, 2006 and costs etc.
6. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version admitting that the complainant approached them with an intention to start Rajiv Internet Centre at Karamchedu village but not for self employment, but denying the allegations made in the complaint and disputing the claim. The brief facts of written version are as under :
The opposite parties did not direct the complainant to arrange the building for establishment of the centre. However, the complainant paid Rs.2,25,000/- to the OP and entered into an agreement on 24.8.2006 to establish Rajiv Internet centre at Karimchedu and they are not aware whether the complainant spent huge amount for securing building, purchasing furniture and towards internal decoration of the building. OPs did not assure the complainant that she would get gross income of Rs.20,000/- per month and that OPs did not agree to provide proposed services 1 to 64 to operate the same at the said Internet Centre but informed that whatever the services that are available with the Govt. of A. P. in the said context will be provided to her for operating the said centre. It is further pleaded by the OPs that the agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties is commercial transaction i.e., collecting the bills from the citizens, receiving the commission on the basis of bills received from the citizens and that the complainant will not come under the definition of consumer and therefore she cannot raise a consumer complaint and that the agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties was entered into at Hyderabad and as per clause 15 of the agreement jurisdiction for all purposes shall be at Hyderabad Courts only and that the District Forum at Prakasam at Ongole has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. The opposite party no.3 filed counter contending that the complainant directly approached the opposite parties 1 and 2 and made her own arrangements to start Rajiv Internet Centre at Karamchedu and that the 3rd opposite party was the coordinator for the period from April, 2006 to March, 2007 on contract basis with the opposite parties 1 and 2 and that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 3rd opposite party and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint against it.
8. The complainant has filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the opposite parties K.Mohan Menon, General Manager of the opposite party no.2 has filed his affidavit and no documents were marked on behalf of the OPs.
9. Having heard both sides and considering the material on record the District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the OPs 1 and 2 to refund the deposited amount of Rs.2,25,000/- together with interest @ 9% PA to the complainant and also to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs of litigation within one month holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops 1 and 2. However, the complainant against OP 3 was dismissed without costs.
10. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed the appeal contending that order of the District Forum is contrary to the facts, evidence and law and that awarding of interest from the date of order at the rate of 9% pa is unjust so also not awarding any amount towards expenses incurred in establishing the internet centre in the rented house with facilitates or amenities and for mental agony of the complainant.
Further, the complainant claimed interest at 12% pa and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the orders under appeal.
11. Heard both side with reference to their respective contentions.
12. The point for consideration is whether the orders under above appeals need to be modified.
13. The case of the complainant is that she entered into an agreement on 24.8.2006 ( Ex. A4) with the opposite parties to run franchise to operate Rajiv Internet Centre at Karamchedu in Prakasam District, under self employment for her exclusive earning and livelihood. The project was initiated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and was awarded to BEL Radiant Consortium which in turn incorporated a new company i.e., the first opposite party company. As per the advice of the opposite parties the complainant had taken a building on rent for establishment of Rajiv Internet Centre.
As required by the opposite parties the complainant deposited an amount of `2,25,000/-on 5.9.2007 through DD by obtaining the same in favour of OP.1 to provide the proposed services and operate them at internet centre at Karamchedu village.
14. The complainant obtained loan from the State Bank of India Karamchedu branch to run the internet centre. According to the complainant, the monthly rent of the building was `1,500/-.
It is her contention that she paid Rs.40,000/- towards advance rent in the month of May 2006 and that incurred expenditure of RS. 45,000/- towards the cost of furniture and Rs.50,150/- for internal decoration of the building. She also pleaded that as required by the opposite parties she engaged the services of computer operator on monthly salary of `2,000/-.
15. The complainants further contends that contrary to their promise the OPs 1 and 2 provided single service, i.e., collection of the electricity bills from the electricity consumers and failed to provide remaining 63 services and that they had postponed to provide the remaining services on one pretext or the other. The complainant contends that the opposite parties had received the amount towards the security deposit by misrepresenting the fact in the project information document.
On the other hand the case of the Ops is that they collected fee from the complainants for providing services and that the complainant utilized the services and that there is no deficiency in service.
There is no deficiency in service. There is no dispute from the Ops 1 and 2 that the complainant paid a deposit of Rs.2,2,5000/- to them and that entered into Ex. A4 agreement dt. 24.8.2006 to establish Rajiv Internet Centre at Karemchedu.
According to them they did not assure the complainant that she would get gross income of Rs.20,000/- per month and that did not agree to provide proposed services 1 to 64 to operate the same at the said Internet Centre but informed that whatever the services that are available with the Govt. of A. P. in the said context will be provided to her for operating at the said centre and that provided the services as agreed and that there is no deficiency in service on their part and thus disputed all the claims. As seem from Cl. 14 of the Agreement the licensors would provide all possible Govt. services as and when made available by the FDS. The private services will also be made liable for franchise on regular basis as and when signed with service channel partners but the Ops did not take any steps in the said direction to help the franchise and even though in the Project information document ( Ex. A10) OPs promised to provide number of services and attracted the unemployed youth like the complainant to invest huge amounts they did not keep up their promise. As seen from the document Ex. A4 is a unilateral agreement and the clause that the fee is not refundable is opposed to public policy and therefore it is not sustainable. The OPs invited the complainant on an attractive proposal by way of advertisement which was capable of implementation and on the hand had lured the complainant to part with money by making vain promises and therefore as rightly held by the District Forum it amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In such circumstances, there is no substance in the contention of the OPs that the amount so deposited by the complainant in the shape of fee is non-refundable. Therefore, OPs 1 and 2 are liable to refund the deposit/fee of Rs.2,25,000/- within one month from the date of the order failing which the amount carries interest at 9% interest till realization. Since the complainant is an un-employee and as she procured Rs.2,25,000/- and deposited the same with the OPS 1 and 2 anticipating that they will provide several services described supra and since the OPs 1 and 2 failed to provide such service it is just and reasonable to order refund of Rs.2,25,000/- together with 9% interest per annum from the date of deposit till realization. Regarding refund of money, jurisdiction point and consumer dispute aspect etc., the OPs 1 an 2 filed Appeal nos. 1011/2009 to 1015/2011 and the same were dismissed by common order dt. 30.12.2011 confirming the order of the District Forum. further quantifying the costs of the Appeal at Rs.3,000/- in each case. When the amount is ordered to be refunded with such rate of interest from the date of deposit, there is no substance in the contention of the complainant for a direction to OPs 1 and 2 to pay other amounts towards mental agony, expenses incurred for establishing the internet centre etc so also interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is much more so when service, i.e., collection of electricity bills from the customers etc is provided since complainants are educated unemployed, their contention that they engaged computer operators to run the said centre could not be appreciated in their favour. Thus the point is answered accordingly partly in favour of the appellant modifying the order with regard to the commencement of rate of interest only.
17 .Similar facts and evidence involved in other aforementioned Appeals as in F.A.No.57/2010 and therefore the said appeal taken as lead case, the same modified order applies to the other appeals aforesaid.
18.In the result, (i ) the appeal in FA57/2010 is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole directing the Opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund the deposit amount of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% pa from the date of deposit till realization with costs of litigation of Rs.2,000/- and the remaining claims stand dismissed so also, total case against OP.3 as ordered by the District Forum. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order.
(ii) the appeal in FA58/2010 is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole directing the Opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund the deposit amount of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% pa from the date of deposit till realization with costs of litigation of Rs.2,000/- and the remaining claims stand dismissed so also, total case against OP.3 as ordered by the District Forum. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order.
(iii) the appeal in FA59/2010 is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole directing the Opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund the deposit amount of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% pa from the date of deposit till realization with costs of litigation of Rs.2,000/- and the remaining claims stand dismissed so also, total case against OP.3 as ordered by the District Forum. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order.
(iv) the appeal in FA.60/2010 is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole directing the Opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund the deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% pa from the date of deposit till realization with costs of litigation of Rs.2,000/- and the remaining claims stand dismissed so also, total case against OP.3 as ordered by the District Forum. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order.
(v) the appeal in FA.61/2010 is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole directing the Opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund the deposit amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% pa from the date of deposit till realization with costs of litigation of Rs.2,000/- and the remaining claims stand dismissed so also, total case against OP.3 as ordered by the District Forum. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order.
There is no order as to costs in the all the aforementioned Appeals.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt:
06.02.2012.