Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/87/2016

Manpreet Batish - Complainant(s)

Versus

Er Harpreet Singh - Opp.Party(s)

In person

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.87 of 2016

                                                    Date of institution : 01.09.2016                                                       

                                                       Date of decision    : 15.09.2017

Manpreet Batish son of Sh. Manmohan Batish, resident of House No.334, Opposite Govt. High School, Brahman Majra, Sirhind.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Er. Harpreet Singh owner of M/s Tech Spartan Patiala Bye Pass Fatehgarh Sahib now doing business at Opposite Aam Khas Bagh, near Bank, First Floor, Bassi Road, Sirhind.
2. M/s Tech Spartan Patiala Bye Pass Fatehgarh Sahib now doing business at Opposite Aam Khas Bagh, near Bank, First Floor, Bassi Road, Sirhind through its authorized representative.

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum       

          Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

          Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :         Sh. N.S.Sidhu, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.

                      Sh. J.S.Jandhu, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.

 

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

 

                     Complainant, Manpreet Batish son of Sh. Manmohan Batish, resident of House No.334, Opposite Govt. High School, Brahman Majra, Sirhind, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              As per agreement dated 24.11.2015, a consideration for the work of developing website was fixed as Rs.20,000/- and as per negotiations the 50% amount was to be paid at the initial stage and remaining 50% to be paid at the stage of final development of the project.  The complainant immediately paid Rs.10,000/- through cheque No.616301 drawn at State Bank of India to the respondent. The complainant handed over all the material, which was to be inserted in the website. The complainant has exchanged various information through telephone and emails as well. Thereafter the OP lost interest in developing the website time to time and the complainant requested on many occasions to the OP to develop the same. The complainant also sent a notice to the OP stating that the OP has caused the loss suffered by the complainant due to non compliance of agreement. The said notice was replied by the OPs by stating a false story. The OPs had so far failed to provide the service to the complainant and had put the complainant to unnecessary harassment.  The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for negligence, deficiency in service and mental harassment and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.              The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint, the OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable; this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. As regards the facts of the complaint, OPs stated that the complainant had engaged the OPs for developing a website for usage of complainant himself and at the time of developing a website MLM, payment of Rs.20,000/- as  charges were settled for such website and the complainant gave one cheque of the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the OPs and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- is pending against the complainant. After completing the project, the OPs demanded remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and also informed him to collect the said project but the complainant did not deliver any cheque or cash to the OPs. Rather the complainant demanded two other projects as SAVE ASTRO and MLM PROFESSIONIST and one Backup Store, which were needed by the complainant. An amount of Rs. 60,000/- for Save Astro Project, Rs.2,70,000/- for MLM PROFESSIONIST Project and Rs.30,000/- for backup store was settled between the complainant and OPs. The total amount of Rs.3,82,000/- was to be paid to the OPs by the complainant. But the complainant paid only Rs.10,000/- through the said cheque. The OPs are still ready to hand over the  all projects, which are ready/completed by the OPs after getting the remaining payment of Rs.3,72,000/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.              In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 along with attested copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-19 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence true copies of documents Ex. OP-1 to OP-6, affidavit of Harpreet Singh Ex. OP-7, affidavit of Didar Singh Ex. OP-8, copies of documents mark-A and Mark-B, and closed the evidence.

5.              Learned counsel for the OPs, has at the very outset, submitted that his preliminary objection be adjudicated upon before proceeding to the case on merits. He stated that the complainant is not a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act(hereinafter referred as Act), as the dealings between the complainant and the Ops are purely business to business dealings as established from the projects Ex.OP-4 & Ex.OP-5. Learned counsel pleaded that the complainant was in the business of selling services online and was sole working for profit. He further pleaded that the complainant has no where pleaded in his pleadings that he was carrying on the said business for earning his livelihood. Learned counsel argued that the complainant has been doing the business of development digital solutions and services primarily for networking marketing industry and the business of the complainant comes under the preview of commercial purpose. He further argued that it is evident from the domain name: mlmprofessionnist.com    and  agreement dated 24/11/2015 Ex.OP-7  executed by the parties that the complainant was involved in commercial activities.

6.              On the other hand, Learned counsel for the complainant objected to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the OPs. He stated that OPs are in the business of website development and complainant paid a consideration amount for availing the services from the OPs, thus complainant is a consumer. Learned counsel further stated that the website was not for commercial purpose as complainant was not selling any product to the consumer. He argued that the present complaint deserves to be adjudicated upon on merits only and complainant deserves to be compensated for the act and conduct of the OPs.

7.              We have gone through the pleadings, evidence, written submissions alongwith the oral arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. We find force in the submissions made by the learned  counsel for the OPs. In the present case, it is ample clear from the projects Ex.OP-4 & Ex.OP-5, agreement dated 24/11/2015 Ex.OP-1  clause (c) wherein it is stated “Manpreet and Spartan are intending to enter into a business relationship for which purpose, the Parties may disclose, or be exposed to, trade secrets of each other, or acquire information which is proprietary to or confidential to such disclosing Party in the course of performing its/their responsibilities under the proposed business relationship”, that complainant was involved in commercial activities and  providing services through online/internet for profit. In our view, it is evident from the material placed on record by the OPs that complainant is not a consumer in view of Section 2(1) d of the Act. Further the complainant has also failed to prove that he was to carry on the online business for the sole purpose of earning his livelihood.

8.              Accordingly, in view of the discussion, we find that complainant is not a consumer in view of the Section 2(1)d of the Act, as there is business to business relationship between the parties. Hence we find it appropriate to return the present complaint to the complainant with liberty to approach the appropriate court of law.   A copy of complaint and documents be retained.

6.              The arguments were heard on ­­­­­­­­­­01.09.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:15.09.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)                  

       President

 

(Inder Jit)                 

      Member