Kerala

Wayanad

CC/09/5

Shaji Joseph, S/o Fr. Joseph, Kattakayam, Santhi nagar Housing Colony, S.Battery. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr Aravind R,LandMark Consultancy, Nadaikavu, Mavelikkara, Pathanamthitta. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2009

ORDER


CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/5

Shaji Joseph, S/o Fr. Joseph, Kattakayam, Santhi nagar Housing Colony, S.Battery.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Mr Aravind R,LandMark Consultancy, Nadaikavu, Mavelikkara, Pathanamthitta.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. P Raveendran 3. SAJI MATHEW

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

The gist of the case is as follows.

The Opposite Party is an entrepreneur of self employment programmes and conducting computerized consultancy in marriage, astrology, real estate and job consultancy. The complainant as a self employment means wanted to take a franchisee of Opposite Party and contacted the Opposite party over telephone. Then the Opposite Party came to Sulthan Bathery and made demonstration of the programe. There was an oral agreement between complainant and Opposite Party to provide necessary software to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.As per the agreement, the Complainant has paid Rs.5000/- and Opposite Party issued a receipt for it. The Opposite Party has not sent the software and accessories. Then the Complainant sent a letter demanding the money he paid. The Opposite Party has not repaid the amount stating that

the franchisee fee is not refundable. The Complainant has spent more than Rs.15,000/- for computer and Rs.4,000/- for office arrangements. The Complainant could not proceed with his plan because of the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Complainant is praying for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.5,000/- with an interest of 12% from 27.07.2007 and to pay a compensation of Rs.19,000/- to the Complainant.

2. The Opposite Party filed version and stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case as the cause of action has arisen at Aleppy District. The Complainant has paid the money to conduct a franchise of Opposite Party and this is for commercial purpose. As per the version, Opposite Party has not promised to give any software to the Complainant. On the other hand the Complainant has paid half of the amount to start a Franchise of Opposite Party Rs.5000/- was paid as franchisee fee which is not refundable. So, the Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint with compensatory cost.

3. The Complainant has filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not adduced any evidence. Hence the matters to be considered are.


 

1. The jurisdictional aspect of the case.

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief


 

4. Point No.1 The Complainant in the complaint has stated that the Opposite Party has come to Sulthan Bathery and conducted demonstrations and promised to supply software to the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not adduced any evidence to challenge this. So the Complainant's allegation is found to be true and Point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant.

5. Point No.2 The Opposite Party in the version has stated that he has stopped the business. So it is evident that the Opposite Party cannot provide any software and the Complainant cannot start any franchisee of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has received Rs.5000/- from the Complainant and has not provided any service or software to the Complainant. So, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Complainant.

 

6. Point No 3 Ext.A1 shows that the Complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- to the Opposite Party. The Complainant is entitled for the return of that amount. There is no evidence to show that the Complainant has taken room and bought computer to start the franchisee. So no order regarding compensation.


 

Therefore, the Complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as cost to the Complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The Opposite party is directed to pay an interest at the rate of 10% also from the date of the order till payment.


 

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of April 2009,


 

PRESIDENT : Sd/-


 

MEMBER I : Sd/-


 

MEMBER II : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the complainant :

Nil

Witnesses for the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Receipt dt.27.07.2007

A2. Notice dt.26.05.2008

A3. Reply notice

Exhibits for the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 




......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................P Raveendran
......................SAJI MATHEW