DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III: WEST,

C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI

NEW DELHI-110058

Complaint Case No.16/2023

In the matter of

Dheerendra Kumar Dubey

R/o House No.B-2, Rajdhani Park,

Nangloi, Delhi-110041                                                     .........COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

The authorised signatory

Mishra Consultancy Services

Represented by

Ankit Kumar

Having registered office at:

Plot No.294-A, Shaheed Nagar Road,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751007

                                                                                      … Opposite Party    

CORAM

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms.Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

                                                                            Dated: 25.01.2023

Present: Complainant  in person.

1.  Complainant submits that he had entered into a software development agreement with the OP  by which the OP was to design a computer application and a website. For this purpose, the complainant  had paid an amount of Rs.55,000/- to the OP on Ist August, 2022  and the work was to be completed  by 30th August, 2022.  According to the complainant no services have been  given by the OP in consideration of the amount paid by him to  the OP nor the amount paid by him to OP has been refunded by it despite exchanging  several communications with the OP.  Complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to either render the services agreed to or to refund the amount of Rs.55,000/- received by it from the complainant.

2.  During arguments at the admission stage, complainant submitted that he wanted  a computer App and a website to be designed for promotion of his business.  According to us the services sought by the complainant from the OP were commercial in nature  which do not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  Shrikant G Mantri v. Punjab National Bank, Civil Appeal No.11397 of 2016, decided on 22.02.2022, after analyzing the law laid down in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G.  Industrial Institute, 6 (1995) 3 SCC 583 observed that:

          “It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly held  that the idea of enacting the said Act was to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods   and   services   purchased   and   availed   by   them   in   a market   dominated   by   large   trading   and   manufacturing bodies. It  has been held that the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect   his   interest.   It provides   for   “business ­to consumer” disputes and  not ­  for “business­ to business” disputes. It has been held that forums/ commissions   provided   by   the   said   Act   are   not supposed to  supplant but supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was to provide an additional   forum providing   inexpensive   and   speedy   resolution   of   disputes arising   between   consumers and suppliers   of   goods   and services.”

            Based on the facts presented before us in the present complaint and following the law laid down in the aforesaid case of  Shrikant G Mantri v. Punjab National Bank(supra),   we are of the view that the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended from time to time.   Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed in limine.  However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Courts for redressal of his grievance.

(Richa Jindal)                                     (Anil Kumar Koushal)                      (Sonica Mehrotra)

  Member                                                               Member                                       President