Complaints filed on: 06-08-2021

                                                      Disposed on: 30-01-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

          DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LL.B., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER

CC.No.145/2022

Sri. M.V.Subba Reddy S/o Late Gurava Reddy,

A/a 67 years, ‘Seven Hills’, 3^rd Main,

Jayanagar East, Shettihally Main Road,

Tumkur – 572 103.

……….Complainant

( In Person)

V/s

Mr.Dola Vijayachandra S/o Chandra Paul,

Director of “Resource i2i “Exports Private

Limited”, Villa No.88, Gate No.2,

Hill County, Nizampet, Hyderabad – 500 090.

……….Opposite Party

(Sri. G.Ranganath, Advocate)

:ORDER:

BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OP U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the sufferings due to the problems with such defective services by the OP.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

The complainant had registered with “Resource i2i exports (P) Ltd., Hyderabad on 8^th February 2022 in order to avail services in the form of export orders from international buyers from countries such as USA/CANADA/UAE/UK to earn his livelihood and paid Rs.29,499/- (Rs.25,000/- + Rs.4,999/- GST).  As per the MOU, the first export order shall commence within three months from the date of registering with the company i.e. “Resource i2i exports (P) Ltd.  It is further submitted that to the complainant’s surprise, he had not received any export order/communication regarding any export order even after lapse of 8 months from the date of registration.  Hence, the OP being the Director of is utterly failed to provide service as per agreement.  It is further submitted that when the complainant tried to contact the OP through phone, the phone of the OP and their staff were switched-off and therefore he went to Hyderabad to contact the OP personally, but the office of OP was not opened during the office hours.  Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice to the residence address of the OP and the same was delivered.  But the OP did not reply to the legal notice till today.  Hence, without any alternative, the complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against the OP.    

3.       On receipt of notice by this Commission, the OP appeared through their counsel.  But in spite of sufficient time granted to the OP, the OP or its counsel did not appear before this Commission to prosecution the case in accordance with law.   

4.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked he documents as Ex.P1 to P11.

5.       We have heard the arguments from complainant in person.  The argument of OP is taken as NIL because the OP did not address his arguments in spite of sufficient time was granted. 

6.       On perusal of pleadings and documents produced by the complainant, the points that would arise for our consideration are:

1)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP?

2)                     Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?

7.       Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2: As per the final order

:REASONS:

Point Nos. (1) (2):

8.       On perusal of complaint averments, documents and evidence submitted by the complainant, it is seen that the complainant had registered with “Resource i2i exports (P) Ltd., Hyderabad on 08.02.2022 in order to avail services in the form of export orders from international buyers from countries such as USA/CANADA/UAE/UK to earn his livelihood and paid Rs.29,499/-  As per the MOU, the first export order shall commence within 3 months from the date of hearing with the Company. 

9.       To prove his case, the complainant submitted and marked the documents as exhibits P1 to P8.   As per Ex.P5, the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- + Rs.4,999 = Rs.29,999/- on 08.02.2022 to the OP. Ex.P8 is the MOU dated:08.02.2022 between the complainant and OP.  Even the payment made by the complainant, the complainant has not received any export order even after lapse of 8 months from the date of registration. Hence, as per MOU, the OP has utterly failed to provide the service as agreed.  Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice to OP and the same was delivered on the OP.  But the OP did not reply to the legal notice and also not defend his case by filing the version and evidence.  The OP also fails to provide the service to the complainant as per MOU after receiving the money.  This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and therefore the OP is liable to pay Rs.29,999/- with interest @ 9% PA from the date of payment i.e. 08.02.2022 to till realization.  Further, for the act of OP, the complainant is compelled to approach this Commission.  Thus, the OP is also liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-       

:ORDER:

The complaint is allowed in part.

The OP is directed to pay Rs.29,999/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% PA from the date of payment i.e. 08.02.2022 to till realization.

The OP is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

Further, the OP is directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023).

LADY MEMBER                   MEMBER                              PRESIDENT