Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/25/2019

Md. Rafique - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepak Mahto Director Wipenex IT - Opp.Party(s)

Amardeep Jha and Poonam

01 Oct 2022

ORDER

          District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-22-01-2019

Date of final hearing-01-10-2022

 Date of Order-01-10-2022

C C No. 25/2019

Md. Safique S/o Md. Karim R/o Sultan Nagar, Chas  District Bokaro

Vs.

Deepak Mahto Director of Wipenex IT Pvt. Ltd. C1/01, 1^st Floor, Mahto Market, Bye Pass Road, Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkahand 

 

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

          Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgement-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.P. to complete the software and provide the website and software source code and data basic file with committed features or to pay Rs. 1,01,500/- as refund of the amount already paid and to pay Rs. 50,000/-  as compensation and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he was approached by the O.P. for designing of website and software of DigiKids Play School and BuKbik on Rs. 85,000/- who assured that he will provide best services to the complainant but inspite of making payment of Rs. 85,000/- from 07.04.2017 to 20.11.2017 in different installments said work was not completed inspite of long time. Further case is that the O.P. has registered the domain of the complainant namely BuKbik on 04.05.2017 which was valid till 04.05.2019 but he failed to create the prescribed software as per the agreed terms inspite of his commitment etc. Further case is that on 03.04.2018 also Rs. 16,500/- was paid to O.P. for renewal, hosting and maintenance of said website of software but O.P. failed to complete the software, website and not provided source code of the software and data base file inspite of repeated requests. Inspite of exchange of legal notices problem was not solved hence this case has been filed with above mentioned prayer.
3. O.P. has filed W.S. and denied all allegations mentioning therein that he has taken the work for designing the website and software as per complaint petition on verbal agreed term for Rs. 1,00,000/- amongst which cost for website for Digikids Play School was Rs. 47,500/- and for Bukbik it was fixed Rs. 52,500/- and contrary to it statement mentioned in the complaint petition is not correct. Further reply is that for the work Digikids Play School and Bukbik software only Rs. 30,000/- has been paid and Rs. 70,000/- is still due with the complainant which has not been paid. Further reply is that meanwhile complainant assigned other works to the O.P. for which he made payments and all works allotted to the O.P. by the complainant have been completed but still complainant has not paid remaining Rs. 70,000/-. Further reply is that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the verbal agreement and there was no agreement to provide the source code and data base file to the complainant hence facts contrary to it mentioned in the complaint petition are denied and case is liable to be dismissed.
4.  Point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed ?
5. It is admitted fact that the work as alleged was verbally given to the O.P. by the complainant. Another admitted fact is that complainant has made payments to the O.P. on several dates.
6. On perusal of the photo copy of the documents annexed with the complaint petition filed by the complainant it appears that Annexure-A is the bank statement but how for it is relevant for this case it has not been described however it shows that the payment has been made by the complainant to the O.P. as it has been admitted by the O.P. Annexure-B are photo copy of the legal notices and its replies amongst which one notice is dt. 20.07.2018 issued by the complainant in the name of O.P. in which it is mentioned that work was allotted for Rs. 30,000/- but said fact is contrary to the statement made at para 2 of the complaint petition in which it is mentioned that work was given for Rs. 85,000/-. Said notice has been replied by the O.P. through reply dt. 03.08.2018 in which he has mentioned that work was allotted for Rs. 1,00,000/- amongst which Rs. 30,000/- has been paid and remaining Rs. 70,000/- is still due inspite of completion of the work. On receipt of reply dt. 03.08.2018 again complainant has replied vide reply dt. 20.08.2018 in which he has mentioned that work was allotted for Rs. 85,000/- only, which was not for Rs. 1,00,000/-. According to reply total Rs. 85,000/- has already been till 20.11.2017 and thereafter, Rs. 16,500/- was paid on 03.04.2018 inspite of it software source code and data base file have not been provided. Again said notice has been replied on 05.09.2018 by the O.P. in which he has mentioned that the work was allotted for Rs. 1,00,000/- and only Rs. 30,000/- has been paid by the complainant against that very work who has not paid remaining Rs. 70,000/- till date. Further reply is that so far other payments are concerned it has been made against the other allotted works which were completed by the O.P. in form of mailer 1, mailer 2 and mailer 3 but other facts have been wrongly mentioned by the complainant.
7. On careful perusal of above mentioned exchange of legal notices it appears that complainant has changed his stand in each notice and reply and O.P. is firm on his stand from beginning till end. However, there is no evidence on record to show that allotted work has not been completed by the O.P. and there was any agreement between the parties for providing the source code and data base etc .
8. In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove his case for grant of relief as prayed, accordingly case is being dismissed with cost.

 

 

(