Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this instant case against O.Ps for her claim amount of Rs. 4,720/- with interest, and also claim of Rs. 70,000/- for misleading advertisement by O.Ps and also claim Rs. 80,000/- for his mental agony and harassment and claim Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
Notices were duly served upon the O.Ps and after receiving the notices all the O.Ps appears before this Commission on 02/01/2023 and filed their w/v on 16/02/2023 and evidence-on-affidavit filed on 16/05/2023 also filed written argument on 12/09/2023. Complainant submitted her evidence-on-affidavit on 17/03/2023 and written argument on 16/05/2023.
In support of her case the complainant has filed some documents in order to prove her case which is given below:-
- The photocopy of the advertisement on the internet marked as Annexure – I.
- Photocopy of the bank statement marked as Annexure – II.
- Photocopy of the system generated tax invoice being No. WB0722SE83252908 along with basic terms and conditions marked as Annexure – III.
- The photocopy of the e-mail dated – 01/08/2022 and also reply e-mail dated – 04/08/2022 marked as Annexure – IV.
- The photocopy of e-mail dated – 02/08/2022 marked as Annexure – V.
- Photocopy of mediation report marked as Annexure – VI.
- Photocopy of negative reviews about Just Dial internet Technology Company marked as Annexure – VII.
O.P Nos. 1 and 2 submitted w/v, evidence-on-affidavit and written argument to defend their case and also filed some documents (Annexure – A to C).
In their w/v O.Ps denied all the material allegations made by the complainant and stated that the complainant has availed the service from the O.P Company for commercial purpose and for earning profits. O.Ps had also pleaded in their w/v that the O.P company’s representative had first explained about services and terms of use to the complainant and had never promised that the O.P will generate business and provide customers for the complainant.
It is also stated by the O.Ps as the company has got an unblemished repute and goodwill in providing good online visibility for business/service so, the complainant had expressed her desire to utilize the services of O.Ps.
The O.Ps had agreed that the Complainant has paid a sum of total Rs.4720/-(rupees 2360+ 1180+1180) in one down payment of Rupees 2360 and two subsequent installments of Rs.1180.
O.Ps also stated in their W/V that at the time of activation of service they have sent terms of service to the Complainant on her registered mobile number 7001098560. The O.Ps had clearly mentioned that the complainant after understanding the complete features of service and terms of service and ECS process the Complainant had entered into a contact with the O.Ps.
The O.Ps also stated that the complainant, post-activation of contract never raised any objection regarding the terms of service which was sent on 08/07/2022 by the O.Ps. It is also denied by the O.Ps that they never published any advertisement which is false or misleading and pre-judicial to the interest of the consumers.
It is also stated by the O.Ps in their w/v as per basic terms relating to automatic renewal, ECS and other mentioned in customer receipt the O.P is liable to terminate the ECS facility while the vendor need to give three months prior notice to O.Ps, only after availing the service of O.Ps for minimum nine months. But in this case upon the receipt of the complainant e-mail dated- 01/08/2022 and 02/08/2022, being a customer friendly organizations the O.Ps have immediately stopped complainant ECS although the complainant having served the mandatory notice period.
We have gone through the materials on record very carefully and also perused the documents which are lying on record and heard argument from the Ld. Advocates of both sides.
In this context the following issues are necessarily come up for the proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 2(7)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ?
- Has this Commission jurisdiction to try the instant case?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Considering the nature and character of the case all these points are interlinked to each other as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
Point Nos. 1 & 2:- It is admitted position that the complainant is a budding entrepreneur who intends to setup a business of food supplement products for her livelihood. For marketing her business the complainant had contacted with the O.P No. 1 and came into an agreement with the office of the O.P No. 1 after conforming all the terms and conditions of the service and for this purpose she made a down payment of Rs. 2,360/- and subsequently two further installments of Rs. 1,180/- was deducted by O.P No. 1 and the said payments were acknowledged by the O.Ps. As per the provision of the C.P. Act, 2019 the complainant she is a consumer and the complainant residing within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try this instant case as per the C.P. Act, 2019.
Point Nos. 3 & 4: It is seen from the case record as well as the evidence of both parties that the complainant being attracted by the advertisement of the O.P No. 1 and approached O.P No.1 for setting up a business of food supplement products. For this purpose the complainant on 08/07/2022 visited the office of O.P No. 1 at Kolkata in person and signed the contract of one year duration and made a down payment of Rs. 2,360/- from her account No.37844332200, S.B.I, Alipurduar through ECS transaction for creating a store of food supplement products. After that an amount of Rs. 1,180/- was deducted by O.P No. 1 on 17/07/2022 and further also the amount of Rs. 1,180/- was deducted by O.P No. 1 on 16/08/2022. Being dissatisfied with the service the complainant sent an e-mail to the O.P No. 1 through their official e-mail Now, the question is, is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or is the complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
We have looked into the complaint copy, evidence-on-affidavit filed by both parties and also we looked w/v filed by the O.Ps and heard argument by both parties, we observed that for establishing and also popularizing her business the complainant had contacted with the O.Ps which provide services over online platforms to its vendors. The complainant being attracted by the advertisement by facebook page approached O.P No. 1. In this purpose complainant visited the office of the O.P No. 1 of Kolkata in person to sign the contract for one year duration and before signing this contract the complainant had totally understood about the terms and conditions of the services which she wanted to avail and this was explained by company’s representative to her. After understanding all the terms and conditions the complainant signed a contract of one year duration with the O.P No. 1 and made a down payment of Rs. 2,360/- from her account No. 37844223300, State Bank of India, Alipurduar for creating a store of food supplement products on O.Ps advertisement platform. This payment also acknowledged by the O.P No. 1 on 08/07/2022. Later the complainant also paid two equal installments of Rs. 1,180/- to the O.P No. 1 for availing the service for upcoming two months i.e. July and August, 2022.
We have also seen that the complainant through an e-mail on 01/08/2022 requested the O.P No. 1 to stop ECS deduction from her account and complete termination of the agreement as she did not get any customer. But we find from the terms and conditions (mentioned in point No. 4) which was agreed by the complainant during signing the contract with the O.Ps, the O.P company is not bound to terminate the ECS process unless the vendor give prior three months notice to the O.Ps after availing the service for minimum nine months.
But we have seen in this case that the complainant had signed a contract with O.Ps which clearly mentioned that the termination of ECS is possible only after using the service for minimum nine months and three months prior notice. But we have seen that the complainant violated the terms and conditions as she had availed the service only for two months instead of nine months.
We also observed that the complainant stated in her evidence that it is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as because they were not able to provide any customer to the complainant. We have seen from the evidence and other supporting documents submitted by both parties that the O.P Company had never promised of providing customers to the complainant for her business.
Therefore, in our considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and the complainant has totally failed to prove her case and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the consumer complaint being C.C. No. 31/2022 is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. No costs.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
