Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/109/2024

SEA RAISERS AGENCIES - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAIN SONS - Opp.Party(s)

ARIF QURESHI

19 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

==================

Appeal No.	:	A/109/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	11/03/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	19/07/2024

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Sea Raisers Agencies through its Proprietor – Manik Bhandari, having office at C/o Kapsons Agencies Private Limited, Plot No. D-196, Industrial Area, Phase 8-B, Mohali – 160062.

….Appellant

Vs.

 

M/s Jain Sons through its Proprietor – Rakesh Jain, having its office at SCO 24, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

 

…. Respondent

 

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Arif Qureshi, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

1.         The present appeal has been filed by M/s Sea Raisers Agencies (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “‘the Appellant”’) challenging the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 vide which the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/303/2021, in the following terms:-

“11.   For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party are directed:-

[a]      To refund the full amount of ₹2,36,000/- and ₹50,000/- to the Complainant;

[b]      To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice.

[c]      To pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

12.    The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @6% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till the same are paid, apart from compliance of directions contained in sub-para [c] above.”

 

2.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

3.         Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that he entered into an agreement on 01.06.2018 with the Opposite Party (Appellant herein) for providing online & offline services for its business set-up. Subsequently, on 25.09.2018, the Opposite Party entered into another agreement dated 25.09.2018 with the Complainant to start online business of the Complainant by creating the website and making the site operational, for which the Complainant paid ₹2,36,000/- and ₹55,000/- extra for starting the website and making it operational. The project was to start on 01.10.2018 and the entire process was to be done within six months. However, the Opposite Party failed to discharge the services as promised by it and failed to make the website operational with all integrations. Accordingly, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to honour the agreement or to refund the amount, but to no avail. Consequently, the Complainant was forced to approach another Consultancy firm namely, Foodstrap on 01.07.2019 and had to pay ₹3,00,000/- extra to get the remaining work done which was at halt due to the fault of the Opposite Party and further to make the website operational. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld.District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

4.         In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, Opposite Party pleaded that it is a consultancy firm and has nothing to do with any kind of website development. The Complainant had engaged it only for consultancy work and accordingly, the bills were raised by it out of which only ₹2,36,000/- and ₹55,000/- were paid. The Complainant in fact has its grievance against Foodstrap E-solutions OPC Private Limited for non-functioning or delayed functioning of its website. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

5.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission partly allowed the Complaint of the Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

6.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

7.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.

 

8.         The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.         It is the case of the Appellant/Opposite Party that the Ld. District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Also, the impugned order was passed without taking into consideration the facts of the case and without appreciating the correct legal position which resulted into gross miscarriage of justice and thus deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.

 

11.         Conversely, it has been contended on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is quite just & right and does not call for any interference. The detailed finding of facts has already been recorded by the District Commission while rejecting the stand of the Appellant/Opposite Party. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint filed before the Ld. District Commission and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 

 

12.         Record transpires, agreement dated 25.09.2018 was executed inter se the parties for providing the services detailed therein and in furtherance thereof, payments had been made by the Complainant to the Appellant/Opposite Party, which stood reflected in the Statement of Account (Annexure C-3). Although, Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that no agreement whatsoever has been entered into between the Appellant and the Complainant/ Respondent; as such, the documents are required to be scrutinized by a forensic expert, yet to our mind the argument raised is farfetched in view of the fact that the said agreement bears the signatures of both the parties; thus the Appellant cannot be allowed to wriggle out of its commitments under the said agreement, especially when there was a clear recital that the Appellant/Opposite Party charged ₹2,36,000/- plus ₹50,000/- for the complete set up of online business including operational cost which means that it was liable to develop a fully operational website without any issues.

 

13.         Learned Counsel for the Appellant further argued that the activity involved in the present case is purely commercial. However, we do not find any merit in the argument so raised, as the same has exhaustively been dealt by the Ld. District Commission while recording its categorical finding in para 7 of the impugned order. The same is accordingly declined. It has been also been argued on behalf of the Appellant that the delay if any in developing the website was caused by the Foodstrap as the Appellant was never actively involved in creating or developing the website. In this regard, referring to an entry dated 12.11.2018 in the Statement of Account (Annexure C-3), Learned Counsel questioned the veracity of the payment of ₹1,00,000/- made to Foodstrap, especially when per communication dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure C-4) their services were engaged by the Complainant only on July, 2019.  After having minutely scanned the said Statement of Account, we are of the view that though there was an entry showing payment of ₹1,00,000/- to Foodstrap, but it does not remotely show that the said payment was made for the purpose of developing the website. In the absence of any concrete proof thereof, to our mind, the Appellant cannot be allowed to draw any benefit therefrom. Needless to mention here, the Ld. District Commission in its findings has categorically observed that when the Opposite Party failed to make the website operational, the Complainant approached another Foodstrap to get the remaining work done, for which he was charged ₹3,00,000/- by the said newly engaged firm which is evident from communiqué dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure C-4).    To our mind, no case is therefore made for any interference in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

14.         No other point was urged, by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

 

15.         It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. District Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

16.         In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.

 

17.         All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.

 

18.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

19.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

19^th July, 2024                                                                  

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”