Delhi

East Delhi

CC/701/2015

PREETI SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THREE EYE INFO - Opp.Party(s)

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 701/2015

 

	Smt. Preeti Sharma W/o Sh. Manoj Sharma, R/o C-38, Radhey Shyam Park Extn., Near Jagatpuri Police Station, Delhi-51	….Complainant
Versus
1.         2.             3.         4.	3i Infotech Company Ltd. Area Manager(Jeevan Kendra):- 3i Infotech Company Ltd. D-Block, Anand Vihar, Deputy Director Education Building, Anand Vihar, Delhi   Corporate Office:- 3i Infotech Company Ltd. 6th Floor, Akurti Centre Point MIDC, Central Road, Net to Marol, Telephone Exchange, Andhery(East), Mumbai-400093   Regd. Office:- Tower No. 2, 3rd Floor to 6th Floor, International Infotech Park, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-4000703.   Noida Office:- 3i Infotech Company Ltd. B-56, Sector-57, Goutam Budh Nagar, Noida(U.P) Pincode-201301	.…OP

                                               

 

Date of Institution: 11.09.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 15.02.2023

Judgment Passed on: 15.02.2023

 

               

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

 

Order By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

By this order the Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the Complainant w.r.t deficiency in service in not providing logistic to the complainant to run her shop despite having charged Rs. 60,000/- from her.

Brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that she obtained franchise of OP Company in the name of ‘Jeevan Kendra’ by which the OP had to give an ID to the complainant and by using that ID, the complainant had to open his shop where from she would tender service to the consumers/customers w.r.t. deposit of their bill i.e. Water Bill, Telephone Bill, Electricity Bill through computer/online, & would get commission.

It is further submitted that OP introduced itself as duly authorised Service Provider of Government of Delhi, and it was also informed to her that, the OP would only provide ID of the OP but such other paraphernalia, such as shop or the computer or the employees etc are to be kept by the complainant. Complainant obtained this ID for running her shop and spent Rs. 2 lakh for all paraphernalia. This ID was for the period of 5 years but the OP closed this scheme within 2 years and OP committed fraud with almost 400 people in Delhi. He even manipulated the account and whatsoever deposit/balance was in the account of the complainant, was withdrawn by OP and OP has looted funds of various persons including of the complainant and as such she filed the present complaint interalia praying that legal proceedings be initiated against the OP and their amount be ordered to be returned to them with interest, penalty, and litigation charges.

OP has filed the reply interalia stating that complainant is not a consumer within the Consumer Protection Act 2019, as the franchise agreement executed on 09/04/2010 was purely for the purpose of commercial activity/business purpose. It is further submitted that agreement was entered on 09/04/2010 and it was terminated on 07/09/2012 on account of the fact that this policy was withdrawn by the Delhi Govt. and complaint has been filed in the year 2015 & therefore the same is barred by limitation.

It is further stated that since the complainant is w.r.t. recover of Rs. 60,000/- i.e. deposited amount by the complainant, it is submitted that such amount was not refundable as per agreement. It is further submitted that project came to be in-existence with the support of Government of Delhi and since the government scrapped the project, the OP could not have provided further services to the complainant which fact was within knowledge of the complainant and as such the agreement has became non-existence and accordingly the complaint of the complainant be dismissed.

On merit facts are not much disputed i.e. OP made offer for the purpose of giving franchise, it was taken by the complainant, Rs.60,000/- was deposited by the complainant with OP. Complainant continued business for 2 years & the project was closed by the government, are the facts which are not disputed and the only contention of the OP is on the legal aspect i.e. agreement  was for providing the service by the complainant which was for commercial purpose and case is also it is barred by limitation.

Complainant filed Rejoinder wherein she denied the facts of the written statement and reiterated the contents of the complaint. Complainant as well as OP both have filed their respective evidence. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.

There is no denial of the fact that complainant took the franchise for commercial purpose and the complainant after having ID from OP, was supposed to provide service for commercial purpose to the various customers w.r.t. deposit of their bills i.e. Water Bill, Telephone Bill, Electricity Bill and other bill after taking certain consideration/commission from customers. The issue therefore as to whether the complainant is a consumer within the definition of Section 2 of Consumer Protection Act 2019. The word ‘consumer’ has been defined u/s 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

7) "consumer" means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or.........

 

7) (ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. 

 

Therefore after going through the definition, the admitted proposition of facts is that this franchise was taken by the complainant for providing services to the customers for commercial purpose and as such complaint is not qualifying herself to be a ‘consumer’ within the definition of the ‘Consumer Protection Act 2019’. Secondly, the agreement has been terminated in 02/10/2012 is admitted fact & the complaint has been filed on 11/09/2015 i.e. after more than 02 years and this contention of OP is also well found and complaint is barred by limitation.

Keeping in view the above, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.     

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to both the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 15.02.2023.