Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/2010

M/s Design Group Project Consultants(P) Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. Nisha Agarwal, M/s EA Water Pvt.ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 Dec 2017

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 14.12.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 30.12.2017

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.2010/2015

DATED THIS THE 30^th DECEMBER OF 2017

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

M/s. Design Group Project Consultants (P) Ltd.,

110/4, M.Krishnappa layout, Lalbagh road,

Bengaluru-27.

Rep by T.S.Srinivasa,

Deputy Director

 

By Inperson     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

Mrs.Nisha Agarwal

M/s.EA Water Pvt. ltd.,

A-1/152, Neb Saral,

IGNOU road,

New Delhi-110068.

 

• Ex-parte

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) seeking issuance of direction to refund Rs.16,000/- which has been paid in excess of training fee, Rs.10,000/- towards the hardship he incurred and Rs.4,000/- towards costs.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that they M/s.Design Group project consultants pvt. ltd., are a design and engineering organization in the filed of electrical engineering and water supply for the past 35 years. Its engineering staff have to keep abreast of the design and technical developments, codes of practice, software skills etc., by attending courses, trainings and other knowledge sharing platforms in the relevant fields, regularly. M/s.EA Water pvt. ltd is an organization with headquarters in New Delhi, which also publishes a periodical ‘everything about water’ and claims to take initiatives in improving awareness towards water related issues. In this context, in the month of July 2015, the Op had sent us an invitation by mail to participate in an ‘advance level course on designing of water treatment plants and operation and maintenance of RO & UF’ to be held in Bengaluru on 24^th & 25^th July 2015. Accordingly, the Complainant responded to the mail and decided to depute two of their engineers, Sri.R.Vasudevan and Sri.T.S.Srinivasa to the training course. In this context, the delegate fee of Rs.16,000/- for two participants was made through NEFT through SBI. Inadvertently, a second payment of Rs.16,000/- was also made through SBI to the same account, by another clerk of their office, who was not aware of the payment already made. In this context, the Complainant made several calls to the concerned authority to settle the issue by reimbursing Rs.16,000/- which was inadvertently made through SBI to the same account by another clerk of their office. Inspite of sending several emails, there was no response from Op. Hence prays for allowing the complaint.

 

3. The Notice has been duly served on the Op, but did not appear before this forum. Hence placed ex-parte.  

 

 4. The Complainant is allowed to substantiate his case, accordingly the Deputy Director of the Complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced 13 documents Annexures 1 to 13 and also filed written arguments. Heard.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Op, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have already briefly stated the facts of the complaint. To rebut the contents of the complaint and also the affidavit evidence filed by the Complainant witness, the Op did not appear. Under such circumstances presumption can be raised on the contents of the complaint as well as the affidavit evidence filed in support of substantiating the case of the Complainant are true and correct. But anyhow, we placed reliance on the documents annexure 1 to 13. In this context, the document annex.13 is very important, which goes to show that the Op has credited an amount of Rs.16,000/- to the Complainant account on 08.01.2016, but the say of the Complainant is that, the Op is yet to pay the balance amount of Rs.14,000/- out of total amount of Rs.30,000/-. As per the case of the Complainant, Op has to refund an amount of Rs.16,000/- which has been paid in excess of training fee by the Complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards hardship they incurred in making numerous calls etc., and Rs.4,000/- towards processing, photocopying and documentation etc., So this amount in all comes to Rs.30,000/-. Out of which the refunded amount of Rs.16,000/- if deducted, which comes to Rs.14,000/-. According to the Complainant this amount of Rs.14,000/- is yet to be payable. We have meticulously gone through the contents of Ex-A13 which is in respect of payment made on 08.01.2016 i.e. during the pendency of this litigation. When this fact is within the notice of the Complainant, he ought to have been brought to the notice to this forum with regard to the refund of Rs.16,000/- which was paid in excess for the training programme for their two candidates. If that being the case, this forum would have been pass suitable orders by imposing the litigation cost and minimum compensation if any. When the Complainant did not inform to this forum with regard to the realization of an amount of Rs.16,000/- being the excess amount paid, hence we find laxity on the part of the Complainant. Hence we do not find any just reasons to direct the Op to pay an amount of Rs.14,000/-. Accordingly we answered this point no.1 in the negative.

 

8. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed, as the Op has already realized an amount of Rs.16,000/- as per annexure 13 which has been inadvertently paid by the Complainant.

 

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we directed both the parties to bear their own cost.   

         

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer and pronounced in the Open Forum on 30^th December of 2017).

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.T.S.Srinivasa, who being the Deputy Director of the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Annex.1 to 3	Email correspondences
Annex.4 & 5	SBI remittance details
Annex.6 to 12	Email correspondences
Annex.13	Payment made on 08.01.16

 

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT