DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __47_ _ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING : 13.4.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:18.12 .2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Abhijit Roy, Owner of M/s. Stylemond Shopping Pvt. Ltd. 3/9, Poddar Nagar, 2nd floor, P.S Jadavpur, Kolkata – 68.
O.P/O.Ps : Dipankar Dey, The Managing Partner , Ficasoft Infotech, Deodar Place, Garia Station Road, Kolkata – 84, P.S Sonarpur.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P, the complainant has filed the instant case under section 12, C.P Act, 1986 ,praying reliefs as mentioned below against the O.P.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant entered into an agreement with the O.P on 4.11.2015 and thereby it was agreed between the parties that the O.P will prepare a website i.e www.romanshopping.com in the name of the complainant’s company viz. , M/s Stylemond Shopping Pvt. Ltd. and ,therefore, the complainant will pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the O.P in different phases within 55 working days from the date of the agreement. The complainant has paid Rs.1 lac out of Rs.1,50,000/- to the O.P in different phases as agreed upon between the parties. Now, the allegation of the complainant is that all services as agreed upon between the parties have not been provided to him by the O.P and, therefore, the complainant has prayed for issuing an order directing the O.P to provide the rest of the services to him and also to pay compensation with interest for harassment ,negligence ,delay and mental agony caused to him by the O.P. Hence, this case.
The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein, it is contended inter alia that the case is not maintainable in law for the reason that the complainant wanted to have an website for the purpose of promotion of his business. According to the O.P, the transaction was a commercial purpose and, therefore, the case is not maintainable in law before the Consumer Forum. Further, it is the contention of the O.P that the complainant has not made full payment and, therefore, full service has not been provided to his website . The complainant has not been able to track the transaction of online shopping and this is only possible after final submission of “e-portal”. Final submission of “ë-portal” can be made only when all balance payments are made by the complainant.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case not maintainable in law?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is filed by the parties. Questionnaires, replies and BNAs filed by the parties are also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
The complainant is a big businessman. For expansion and prosperity of his business, he concluded an agreement with the O.P and the O.P also agreed to open an website for the complainant. The said website has also been opened by the O.P and some goods/merchandise of the complainant have also been sold through that website. These are the facts made out in the petition of complaint filed by the complainant himself and these facts go a long way to establish that the website was opened for the complainant for the purpose of his business. The purpose of opening website of the complainant was to improve his business and so ,we feel no difficulty whatsoever to say that the website was opened by the complainant for commercial purpose. If a transaction is completed for commercial purpose, the person who purchases anything or any services under such commercial transaction is never regarded as Consumer within the definition of “Consumer “as provided under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act, 1986. The complainant being not a consumer, the instant case appears to be not maintainable in law and, therefore, it requires to be dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P without any cost, as being not maintainable in law.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
