This is an order, on the point of admissibility of the  complaint.  The said complaint was filed  before  this   commission on 29.3.2023  and accordingly case was fixed for admission hearing .

We have heard the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant wherein it is submitted that complainant entered into an agreement  on 25.5.2022 regarding one project to develop an Anroid Application and the op. party agreed to complete the project within  a period of 65- 70 working days, and all the conditions are written in  an agreement and it is also agreed that the op. party will work on   the e UI/UX Design after confirmation with the first token advance and the same will be shown to the petitioner within 20 days and  after finalizing the UI/UX design will start the Fronted Screens and  coding and that will also be shown to the petitioner within the 15   days and after that the opp.party will do the Backend Coding along  with Admin Panel and will be shown to the petitioner in 20 days ;  and after doing both coding the opp.party will connect frontend and  backend and make it functional and will show the petitioner the  same in 10 days. And after that the op.party will deploy it and will  be the deliverable to the petitioner within 5 days.

The complainant submitted that he paid Rs.38,940/- as an  advance amount on 25.5.2022 and another amount of Rs.38,940/-  on 30.6.2022 as well as also paid an amount of Rs.58,410/- on   19.8.2022 as agreed.

It is alleged that the opp.party since August 2022 started   responding very slowly and further submitted that he sent a mail  by warning the opp.party for such act and following which one Mr.  Varun V P of the company called the petitioner and met a long   conversation, giving assurance that he will take care of the project.  But since November ,2022 nobody from the op.party company made any response .

The petitioner alleges that the opp.party company made a fraud  by cheating the petitioner. That the company has taken   Rs.1,36,790/- which is 83% of the project value and the project   value is R.1,65,000 + GST, but did not give anything , which is an  unfair trade practice and caused the total financial loss.

          The complainant prays before this commission to   admit this     petition and claim an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for financial loss  &      mental agony etc. from the opp.party .

After perusing the complaint petition as well as the submission placed by the learned counsel , we are of the view that there   cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid   down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Apex    Court has held that “ The proceedings before the Commission   being summary in nature, the complainants involving highly   disputed questions of facts of the cases involving tortious acts or   criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act.”

Again  we   took    the    definition of Consumer as defined u/s 2(7) of    Consumer Act, which is as follows, -

“consumer” means any person who-

(i)   Buys any goods for a consideration which   has   been paid   or      promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any   system of deferred payment   and includes any user of such    goods  other  than   the   person    who  buys such goods  for  consideration   paid   or    promised  or   partly   paid    or   partly    promised or  under any system of deferred payment, when  such use is made with the approval of such person, but   does not include a persen who obtains such goods for     resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) Hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has  been paid or promised or partly paid or partly premised, or  under any system of deferred payment and includes any  beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires  or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised,  or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of  deferred payment, when such services are availed of with  the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any   commercial purpose.

Now, considering the fact of the present complaint it appears that the petitioner is  not a consumer as he has not purchased any goods for consideration nor avails any  service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly  promised and the service agreed to be rendered does not appear to be a service for  any non-commercial purpose. It is relating to a project agreed with the opp.party by  the complainant as apparently appears from the complaint petition and as such we   do not consider the complainant as a consumer under the definition of Consumer   as already discussed.

As we have already discussed that the proceeding before the    consumer commission is summary in nature. We cannot entertain,   the complicated issues of civil nature , which may be adjudicated by   the appropriate authority under law. Therefore , we are of the view   that the present complaint does not fall under the purview of the   Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the complaint petition  is rejected  .