Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 29.7.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.767 of 2007 was dismissed. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the on 29.09.2006 a representative of OPs approached the complainant in his office for demonstration of online case law and after the demonstration the Complainant stressed the fact that since he was practicing in the Punjab & Haryana High Court ,so he wanted the judgments of Punjab & Haryana High Court and OP assured him that the judgments of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court would be included in the online data search i.e. in his online product within a period of one month. The OP apprised the complainant that the cost of the online product i.e. to access www.cdilawjournal.com & www.cdilawjournal.in was Rs. 15,000/- + 5,000/- and that since the product was just launched therefore, there was a special introductory scheme as such under that scheme, he was asked to pay Rs. 12,000 / - (Rs. Twelve Thousand) initially being the Licence Agreement and the subscription for the period of one year from the date of the bill and it was further communicated that after expiry of one year an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) would be charged as annual subscription/renewal charges for every year. On persuasion and assurance of the OP that he would soon be able to get the judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court online and as such agreed to buy/subscribe the product and paid the amount through cheque of Rs. 12,0000/- (Rs. Twelve Thousand) bearing Cheque No. 166425 dated 29.09.2006 drawn at Punjab & Sindh Bank. It was averred that as complainant was not able to get the judgments of Punjab & Haryana High Court, as such he contacted the OP on phone and it was again informed that the same was under process and would be updated within a period of 15 days but the judgments of Punjab & Haryana High Court had not been uploaded on the online product i.e. on www.cdjlawjourna1.com& www.cdilawjournal.in. The complainant alleged that on opening these websites the name of Punjab & Haryana High Court was found mentioned in the list of the courts whose judgments were available but surprisingly not even a single judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court was there. Thereafter, the complainant received a call from the office of the OP for the renewal of the aforesaid service provided by them for which he declined to get it renewed due to non-inclusion of the Judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court. Instead of including the judgments of Punjab & Haryana High Court, the OP stopped the access of the complainant on the aforesaid online product i.e. www.cdilawjourna1.com& www.cdilawjourna1.in on 23.08.2007 unilaterally without notice, unlawfully with malafide intention as the same was to continue till November,2007. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 4. On the other hand the case of OP No.2 before the District Forum was that OP No.1 had conducted demonstration on their own and it was not aware about the demonstrations conducted by their agent. It was admitted that the judgments of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana Court were not available but no promise was given to the complainant for including the same within one month. It was pleaded that opposite party never persuaded the Complainant neither made any promise about inclusion of Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgments. It was a growing concern and was in the process of including Judgments of all the High Courts in India which was a time consuming process and it required permission from various authorities, huge resources and corresponding addition and expansion of facilities and therefore it was not possible for the Opposite Party to include Judgment of any High Court in a short span of time. It was further pleaded that the Complainant had subscribed in September 2006 and had used it for a full year and the Complainant had received the products of the Opposite Party and had accessed the Web sites 195 time approximately during the said period. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint . However, OP NO.1 was represented through its counsel but subsequently none appeared before the District Forum and suffered ex parte proceedings. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and dismissed the complaint being merit less. This is how feeling aggrieved, complainant has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main contention of learned counsel for appellant/complainant is that there was shortcoming and inadequacy in the service promised to be provided by OPs as is clear from the cover page of the website where the name of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Highcourt is clearly mentioned in the column of reportable judgments, copy of which is Annexure A-3. According to complainant, once it is established that the website of OPs is displaying the name of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High court in the column of reported judgments, the burden of proof shifted upon them to establish as to why the name of Punjab & Haryana High court was being mentioned in the website if the approval from the Registrar of the said high court was still awaited. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP NO.2 in its reply admitted that the process of including judgments of all high courts is a time consuming process and it requires permission from various authorities, huge resources and corresponding addition and expansion of facilities, so it is not possible for OP to include judgment of the high court in a short span of time. It is clearly depicted in the Annexure A-2 cover page of website that “ the only journal in India reporting all the reportable judgments of Supreme Court of India…………….., in the High court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh”. It is admitted case of the parties that still the judgments of Punjab & Haryana Highcourt are not online. Without getting prior approval from the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Highcourt, displaying of such caption tantamounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The stand of OP regarding using of the product by 194 times is only the number of times the complainant had logged into the website of OP company. This figure by no stretch of imagination establishes that the complainant was using the site in question.. 8. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum failed to appreciate the documents and evidence produced by complainant in its right perspective. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order dated 29.7.2008 and allow the complaint. 9. In the result, appeal is accepted with costs of Rs.10,000/- and OPs jointly and severally are directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of their misleading conduct, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. The aforesaid amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid by OPs to the complainant within thirty days from the date copy of the order is received, failing which they will be liable to pay interest @ 12% on the said amount from the date of filing the complaint till its actual realization. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
