3. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has enhanced the requirements beyond the discussion which has taken place between the parties in the month of July, 2020 verbally. Now by filing the present complaint, he wants to get the things done which were not agreed upon/ discussed between the parties. That complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. As per verbal agreement, the answering op prepared the job portal as ordered by the complainant. Several other requirements which were made by complainant from time to time either through emails or through mobile or through personal visits were fulfilled by the op. The complainant was asking to add more features other than the discussed requirements. That complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material acts. The complainant has filed the present complaint in order to harass and humiliate the answering op. He has already shut down the said business of providing job to the job seekers and started a new business in the name and style of Ramano’s Restaurant Bathinda in the month of October, 2020. That complaint is false and frivolous and carries no iota of truth in it and same deserves to be dismissed with special costs.
4. On merits, it is submitted that answering op developed the said website. The errors pointed by complainant from time to time were removed and resolved. The op replied all queries raised by complainant through emails and whatsapp and never refused to correct the errors, but it was the complainant who every time raised new issues beyond the proposed services. Every time the complainant wanted to get added new features and get changed the job portal by calling through mobile phone. He was asked to visit the premises of answering op and to get resolved all issues if any by sitting together with the officials of the company. The complainant used to check the portal after a gap of months together or so and thus he was himself at fault for the delay if any in the matter. There was no negligence and deficiency on the part of op to provide his services to the complainant. Rather the complainant was reluctant and wanted to put the blame on the answering op. It is further submitted that complainant sent various emails regarding the issues and queries raised by him and same were duly replied immediately through emails. The complainant kept putting pressure on the answering op to add new changes and requirements and making the job more and more widen and caused hindrance in his work besides mental harassment and agony and spoiled his valuable time. The op did not commit any mistake nor he was negligent and still assured him to resolve the issues, if any. It is further submitted that answering op has already done the major work of creating/ preparing job portal for the complainant after investing his huge precious time and handed over the same to the complainant and since the answering op has developed the software/ job portal for the complainant after spending huge time, so the question of returning the amount does not arise at all, rather the same was charged for the services rendered by him. The answering op is still ready to resolve any minor error in the above said website but he is not liable to make major changes and to create more features as per wishes and whims of the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant has not attached any proof of inadequacy of services and non resolving of his issues. His intention is only to get back the money by putting pressure upon answering op. The complainant wanted to impose boundations even after one year and he was not having any right to approach to the answering op for the same, when he moved his hosting from op’s company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents i.e. his adhar card Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3, email from pages 1 to 14 Ex.C4.
6. On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Sh. Amit Bansal, Managing Director and Proprietor Ex. RW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Jaswant Singh Software Engineer of op Ex. RW2/A and copies of documents i.e. registration certificate of company of op Ex.R1 and untitled form Ex.R2 and website Ex.R3, emails Ex.R4 to Ex.R9.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. Learned counsel for complainant while reiterating the contents of complaint contended that op has failed to correct the errors in the website got prepared by complainant from him despite his several requests made through emails or through personal visits and has caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and as such complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.21,000/- which was paid by him to the op for development of above said website besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for op filed written arguments in which while reiterating the averments made in the written version, he has also contended that the forms submitted for making the website was given to the op. It was successfully developed as desired by the complainant and was delivered. Thereafter, complainant raised some query and pointed out some errors therein and same were removed and he was asked that if any error still exists, op is ready to resolve the same. But op never visited rather he asked to add new feature of service which was not in the proforma of website given by complainant and as and when he put any queries either through email or chat, the same were replied then and there without any loss of time. Ld. counsel for op has further contended in written as well as in oral arguments that it was the complainant who was time and again asking the op to make more adding in the website and even he did not check the same. As admitted by complainant in his email dated 29.08.2020, maximum website work was complete and for error if any he did not visit to the office of op. The error regarding no functioning of button of website which was delivered to complainant may be of his server system. So far as non working of website is concerned, the domain and server remains in process for one year and that was on his own account. He has further contended that amount was given in installment. The website is still working in their sub domain system and after all setups, they delivered it to the complainant on his server that was valid for one year and due to non renewal of server, the website is under non working. The Jquery, Plugin, Style-sheets, Patch File, UI Design, Events File, Backend Coding has been integrated and published on the live server to make the website working and same work only on live server and sub domain only has separate files for development purposes only. The op also advised him to visit him and to show the errors, issues, changes and make the work complete by team members but he never visited and only made harassment due to greed for return of money. Remaining contents of written version are also reiterated in the written/oral arguments and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
10. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.
11. Admittedly, the complainant in order to get developed a website from op’s company approached to the op in the month of June, 2020 and op developed the website for the complainant for an amount of Rs.21,000/-. The grievance of the complainant is that there were many errors in the website developed by op and he requested to the op to correct the same but the op started to put the matter off on one pretext or the other. Though complainant has alleged that he visited to the op several times and also requested him through emails and whatsapp alongwith proof of errors but op flatly refused to correct the errors but however, from the perusal of email Ex.C4 (from pages 1 to 14) itself placed on file by complainant, it is revealed that every email of the complainant was replied by the op and op every time tried to resolve the issue raised by the complainant through email. The op in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A has reiterated all the contents of his written version. Similarly, Software Engineer of op namely Jaswant Singh in his affidavit Ex.RW2/A has categorically stated that even after the verbal agreement in between the parties, during the processing of job portal, the complainant made some other requirements in the job portal/ website which were conveyed by him through mobile as well as email message and same were also done by op without any extra charges from the complainant. He has further stated that op has prepared and developed the website as per requirement of complainant and same was delivered to the complainant to his entire satisfaction. However, even after the preparation of the website, the op has provided the services to the complainant and did some additions as per requirement of complainant and the errors so pointed by him were removed and resolved to his satisfaction. He has further stated that complainant wanted to get add new feature and get change the job portal which was beyond the discussion regarding the job portal and was not liability of op. The op has also averred that proforma for development of website was provided to him by the complainant and in this regard has also placed on file untitled form Ex.R2, from the perusal of which coupled with email Ex.C4 placed on file by complainant himself, it is evident that complainant wanted to add more new features in the software/website even after providing proforma for development of website by him and the op either resolved the issues raised by complainant after adding features as desired by the complainant or replied to the complainant through email that same is not possible due to technical issue or same was beyond the discussions made for development of the website as complainant raised more requirements in the website time and again. In this regard op also sent email to the complainant, copy of which is placed on file as Ex.R4 in which it was duly stated to the complainant that “As per given requirements, you mentioned “We want to make Basic Web Portal” but day by day, your requirements are expanding in terms of other websites examples like “Naukri.com” etc. Kindly send/ explain your complete requirements of website with what to make changes, how much work done has been delivered to you. Send the exact requirements/ issues you are facing with sample snapshots and you paid the amount regularly based on the company’s “Einix Infotech Pvt Ltd” Work performance/ delivered features for your website (paid as installments based on the work delivered. You have given regular requirement/ changes for generate the website features but not the problems. The website “CareerSahara.com” has been solved and “Einix Infotech” has delivered after alteration/ changes/ add-on features in the website 3 month ago but we did not get any query from last three months.
12. From the record available on file, it is duly proved on record that work of development of website which was assigned to the op by complainant was duly performed by op and op also corrected the errors as pointed out by complainant and also added some features as wanted by complainant but still complainant wanted to add more new features time and again in the website i.e. beyond the discussions made at the time of assignment of work. The complainant in his affidavit has not denied the averments of written version of op. Therefore, the written version of op as well as written arguments submitted by op that website is working in their sub domain system and after all setups was delivered to the complainant on his server that was valid for one year and due to non renewal of server, the website is non working has substance and has merit. The complainant has failed to prove his case and has not led any cogent and convincing evidence in support of his averments.
13. Keeping in view of our above discussions, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 14.09.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
(JK)
