RADIANT INFOSYSTEM PVT. LTD. Vs. D. ADHILAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common Order dated 13.12.2011 in First Appeal Nos. 1011 of 2009, 1012 of 2009, 1013 of 2009, 1014 of 2009 and 1015 of 2009 and common order dated 6.2.2012 passed in First Appeal Nos. 57 of 2010, 58 of 2010, 59 of 2010, 60 of 2010 and 61 of 2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short the 'State Commission') are sought to be challenged through these petitions filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal Nos. 1011 to 1015 of 2009 were also filed by the petitioner herein, against the orders passed by the District Forum, Vijayawada in the complaints filed by the complainant while the appeal. Nos. 57 of 2010 to 61 of 2010 were filed by the petitioners against the order dated 12.6.2009 passed by the District Forum, Prakasam at Ongole in the complaints. By the said orders, the said District Forums had partly allowed the complainants and directed the opposite parties (petitioners herein) to refund the deposited amounts to the complainants and to pay litigation cost with the stipulation that the amount shall be paid within one month from the date of the orders, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till the date of payment. Though several pleas were raised by the petitioners in order to assail the said finding and orders passed by the District Fora but they did not find favour of the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeals and affirmed the orders passed by the District Fora. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Commission. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaints by the complainants in these cases are amply noted in the orders passed by the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The complaints were filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties inasmuch as it was alleged that the opposite parties failed to provide remaining 63 services as prescribed in their Project Information document and had provided only one such service. The complaints were resisted inter alia on the ground that the complainants were not consumer inasmuch as the agreement between the complainant and opposite party were in commercial nature i.e. collecting the bills from the citizens receiving the commission on the basis of bills received from the citizens and therefore they did not come under the definition of 'consumers'. Another objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaints before the concerned District Forum was that the agreement between the parties was entered into at Hyderabad and as per Clause 15 of the said agreement, the jurisdiction to agitate any dispute was restricted to Hyderabad Courts only. The District Forum considered the said objections bearing in mind the legal position as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission in number of decisions and rejected both the objections by observing as under:

(2.) On merits of the complaints, the District Forum held the opposite party guilty of deficiency in service by holding that the despite a promise to provide all possible Government services as and when made available by the EDS to the franchises (complainants). The opposite parties had failed to take any steps in that direction to help the franchises as a result of which the project became unviable for the complainants, each of whom had invested about three lacs of rupees by depositing the amount with the opposite parties and providing the furnished space.

(3.) The same objections and pleas were raised by the opposite parties before the State Commission in appeals and the State Commission has upheld the findings of the District Fora by observing as under: