State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Genaral Manager, M/S. Reliance ... vs Smt. Madhu Tibarewal, on 31 January, 2017
\
It
srATE coNsuMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL coMMIssIoN,
oDIsHA, curracK
(From an order dated 2.4.2074 passed by
t].e District Forum, Khurda
at Bhubaneswar in C.D. Case no. 51 of 2011)
1. The General Manager,
M/ s Reliance Communications Infrastructure,
Brindawata, )nd floor, Shree Ram Milrs premises,
G.K.Mard, Worli, Mumbai
2. The"6a1es Lead Dhirubhai Ambani
Knowledge City,
Thane Betapur Road, N wi, Mumbai _ 4OO
3
Z"Og
:T,".:t',.:ff"633::n",
Floor,
aneswar _ TSI O23
... Appellants
Vrs.
Smt. Madhu Tibarwal.
W/o Sri pawan fumai Tiberwal.
R/o Ganapati Tower, Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar,
.Proprietor M/s R.R. Con munications
(Authorised PCOL_BA), B _ 70, Ashok
Markjet,
Bhubaneswar - ZSI OOg, present Address _
Care
M/s Amti Agencies, Shop No. 10, Kasturi E"t"t";
Ashok Nagar, Bhubanesv r_ 751 OO9
... Respondent
For the appellants : M/s P.K.Kanungo
For the respondent & Associates
: None
PRESENT:
P THE HON'BLE SHT{I JUSTICE R.N.BISWAL,
PRESIDENT,
SHRI G.P.SAHOO, MEMBER
AND
SMT.SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER
DATED THE 31=t JANUARY, 2017
ORDER
SMT.SMARITA MOHANTY. MEMBER This appeal is directed against order dated 2.4.2oL4 passed by learned District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in c. c. case no. 51 of. 20 11 wherein appellants were directed to refund security money of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 9% from 15.4.2oo9 till date of actual refund and so also litigation costs of Rs.3,ooo/-.Appellants were jointly and severally held liable to comply within one month from the date of communication of the order, failing which respondent was at liberty to execute the same against the appellants in accordance with law.
The brief facts of the case are to the effect that ?2t resirondent/complainant being an unemployed lady carried on a
- fir,siness in the name and style of 'M/s R. R. communications, for j;:.. !t . ning her livelihood. She being a proprietor executed an agreement th the appellant/O.P. no.1 for Fixed Wireless Terminal Business (Fwr). As per the agreement she deposited Rs.2,oo,o0o/- as securit5r deposit vide cheque no. 055451 dated 20.+.2oor drawn on Allahabad Bank, (srB) Bhubaneswar. she had also further deposited Y Rs.50,000/- as security deposit vide cheque no.05545g dated 13.6.2007 drawn on the same Bank. It was alleged that due to non- cooperation of appellants/o.ps. she suffered huge loss and was compelled to withdraw from the said business and gave a notice to appellant no.3 to that effect on 15.4.2oo9. But there was no response.
Finding no other alternative she sent one legal notice on 16. 1L.2OL4 to all appellants/o.ps. by registered post with AD. It was also alleged that respondent/ complainant was not provided with the terms and conditions of the said agreement. Alleging gross deficiency on service and unfair trade practice, she filed a case before the Forum below seeking direction to appellants/o.ps. to refund the security deposit money of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited with them. she also prayed for compensation along with other consequential relief.
Notices were served on o.ps. They frled their written version contending that respondent/complainant is not a consumer u/s 2(1)
(d) (i) of C'P. Act, 1986 as she carried business activity for commercial purpose' It was also contended that as per the terms and conditions of
i)' the agreement executed between the parties, it was categorically stated that if any dispute arise it shalr be decided through 't an r€, this Forum does not have case. Appellants/O.ps. vehemenflv t***.j.'**)b* opposed any service provided to respondent/complainant.
In view of terms and conditions of the agreement she being the proprietor of the firm carried out the business activity with commission basis.
Rattrer she will be liable for any deficiency in service caused to the customer,s under her jurisdiction. Hence, appellants/o.ps. prayed Y for t].e dismissal of the complaint.
After hearing the parties learned District Forum allowed t].e complaint on contest against t].e appellants/o.ps.
The
-7* ,:,1
appellants/o.Ps. were directed to refund back the security money of Rs.2,5o,ooo/- to respondent/complainant along with interest @ 9%o per annum from the date of surrender of the LBA i.e. on 15.4.2009 till the date of actual refund. Litigation cost was fixed at Rs.3,000/- payable by appellants/o.Ps. jointly and severally within a stipulated period of one month from the date of communication of t.|e order, failing which the respondent/complainant was at liberty to execute the same against the O.Ps. in accordance with law.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, appelants/o.ps frled the present appeal before this commission on the grounds that respondent/complainant is not a consumer. She was a commission liable to be set aside.
anungo, learned counsel for the appellants.
f respondent on call.
;i t -' ! '{1 a. \ record along with documents; impugned ll as the LCR.
on perusal of record it is evident that respondent had deposited Rs.2,50,000/- towards security deposit before appellants for Fixed Y wireless Terminal Business. The said security deposit was made by respondent as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It was alleged by respondent that appellant did not cooperate and suffered huge loss she was compelled to withdraw from the said business.
on thorough perusar of the FWT agreement it is found that respondent was a Local Business Associate (LBA) running her business under the name and style of M/s R. R. communication and she was the sole proprietor. on 2o.4.2oor she had deposited the security deposit to carry on the business. on rs.4.2009 she gave a notice to appellants to withdraw from LBA and discontinue from the said business- From the agreement it is evident that ,,the agreement shall commence on the effective date and shall continue in full force and effect for an initial period of one year (the Initial rerm), which term shall be automatically be extended upon expiring for such terms (Extended Terms) of the same period unless Reliance exercises its rights to terminate the agreement as provided therein.
In the instant case respondent wanted to withdraw from LBA a,nd.discontinue from the said business after two years.
As per the
'a t
ri
ement the term of the said business is renewed yearly unless f ated. Respondent after carrying on business for two years did ot want to continue and communicated to appellants , . *' to withdraw from the same. As the agreement is yearry one
-g*'' and renewed automatically unless intimated. As per the Sectionlo.3 of the agreement: "upon expiry of the term or termination of the Agreement LBA shall (a) immediately cease providing the Y services, use of the LBA code' Reliance's or Affrliates or Reliance Marks (b) forthwith return to Reliance all Proprietary information, Data/Data bases and Reliance Materials supplied. to the LBA or LBA Employees in connection with the Telecom Services and the services, ( c prompfly and ) at its expense make such modifications to the interior/exterior fagade and design of the premises as Reriance may require, to remove arl identification as a business associate of Reliance and (d) pay any balance amounts due and payable by LBA to Reliance as on date of such termination,,.
Further section 10.4 of the agreement reads as folrows: ,,In the event LBA does not comply with the provisions of Section 10.3 above, Reliance shall, without prejudice to any other remedy that it may have under law is entitled to appropriate the security Deposit in full or in part, as setoff against any amounts that are due and payable by the LBA and the LBA has expressly consented to such appropriation,,.
In view of the above discussion it is clear that the appellants and respondent are principal and agent and not service provider and consumer. Hence, the matter is not sustainable.
In the result, appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 2.4.2074 passed by learned District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in C. D. Case no. 51 of 2OIL.
Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.
.........1....
/ ''-
fi-r
(Smarita Mohanty)
T ( Justice R.N.Biswal)
r{ Member
President
A ;
t.-
q
",,
r'?