Date of Filing :11.02.2022 Date of Disposal :22.04.2022 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF APRIL-2022 PRESENT Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO.289/2022 1. Zee Learn Limited, Level No.6, Fund Republic Off. New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053.

2. M/s Zee Learn Limited, No.49/5, Rama Arcade, Opp. AG International Hotel, Bowring Hospital Road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560 001.

For both Rep/by its authorized Representative, Sri.Venkat Ramu, Priority Manager. … Appellant (By Sri. Satyanarayana Reddy.K, Advocate)

-Versus-

Mr. Keshava Murthy, S/o Late Munichannaiah, Aged about 41 Years, R/at No.169, 2^nd Main, 3^rd Cross, Bhovipalaya, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore-560 086. …Respondent (By Sri. H.V.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate)

O R D E R

Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This is an appeal filed u/s 41 of C.P Act, 2019 by O.P in CC-No.631/2016 on the file of Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2020. The Respondent herein was the complainant and the appellants were O.P.No.1 and 2, hereinafter would be referring to as complainant and O.P.Nos.1 and 2 and the Commission passed the impugned order as Commission below.

2. It is the case of Complainant before the commission below would be he being educated unemployed person, to get self employment has paid Rs.2,50,000/- to OPs and entered into an agreement towards Franchise Fee on 21.08.2014 and to that affect OPs issued a receipt dated 26.08.2014. Complainant in spite of his best efforts around Ullal and surrounding areas of Bangalore could not get suitable premises. On 05.06.2015 he received a notice from OP and tried to get suitable accommodation, however, could not get suitable accommodation to start up centre. He issued a notice dated

20.01.2016 called upon OP to refund Rs.2,50,000/- with interest.

The OPs contested the complaint contending that, person, who avails the service for commercial purpose cannot be a consumer and he is not the consumer as he is employed at Technoforte International Pvt. Ltd., as a Senior Executive Administrator. Further, contending as there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. The complainant could not come within the definition of consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act, 1986.

3. In view of rival contentions of the parties, Commission below held an enquiry, received affidavit evidence of complainant, documents-1 to 7, affidavit evidence of Mr.Vikram Mahesh Paul, authorized signatory of OPs along with documents-1 to 5, thereby allowed the complaint in part, directed OPs to refund Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant received towards Franchisee Fee within 30 days, failing which OPs shall have to pay interest @ 8% p.a till realization, which is now in this appeal on the grounds, as per Clause-8.7 in the event of complainant fails to commence Kidzee Centre even by end of the month, Ops are empower and entitle to terminate the franchise agreement and in such event the franchisee accepts the termination and forfeiture of entire amount of the franchisee fee paid under the franchise agreement. The OPs gave a fair opportunity and gave length of 9 months of time to the complainant, yet he failed to look out for the premises, which would suit for running Kidzee Centre, resulted in terminating the agreement and forfeiture of amount. The Commission below failed to appreciate termination notice dated 05.06.2015. The complainant himself expressed his intention to step back for the decision of setting up a Kidzee franchisee in the areas, which he has chosen and the Commission below failed to appreciate e-mail communication dated 26.06.2015 and would contend forfeiture of franchise fee is justifiable. The complainant is alternatively employed at Technoforte International Pvt. Ltd., and working as Senior Executive Administrat