District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.472/2022.
Date of Institution: 01.09.2022.
Date of Order: 13.07.2023.
Kuldeep Poswal aged about 42 years S/o Shri Bir Singh Poswal, R/o Office: 349, basement, sEctor-31, Faridabad – 121003, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. Alankit Limited Registered office at: 205-208, Anarkali Bazar, Jhandewalah Extension, New Delhi – 110 055 through its Director/principal Officer.
2nd address:
Alankit House, Office: 4E/2, Alankit House, Office: 4E/2, Anarkali Bazar, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi – 110 055.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Nishant Nagar , counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party ex-parte vide order dated 31.10.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the opposite party approached the complainant and allured that NSDL e-Goverance Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai as appointed the opposite party to operate Tax Information Network (TIN) to render services relating to collecting, receiving processing, recording the specified DATA information and forwarding and transmitting the same to NSDL etc. The opposite party offered a branch to the complainant for operation to outsource/assign the work and running TIN-PC/PAN Centre as business associate of the opposite party. The complainant agreed to accept offer and accordingly, a MOU was executed between the opposite party and the complainant on 08.07.2019 and the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.35,000/- s interest free refundable security to the opposite party, which was mentioned in the said MOU. Besides the said security amount, the opposite party also received a sum of Rs.5,000/- as service charges from the complainant and in this way, the opposite party had received a total sum of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant. As per MOU, the complainant worked for the opposite party for one year, but the opposite party suddenly closed his office in inception of March 2020 and also all the communication disconnected and the complainant tried his level best to contact the opposite party but no communication took place. The complainant sent legal notice dated 30.05.2022 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) release the aforesaid deposited amount of Rs.35,000/-.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 31,000 /-as litigation expenses
2. Notice issued to opposite party not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, opposite party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.10.2022.
3. The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.
4 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – M/s. Alankit Limtied with the prayer to a) release the aforesaid deposited amount of Rs.35,000/-. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 31,000 /-as litigation expenses
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.C-1 (P1 to P4) - Memorandum of Understanding Appointment of Business Associate, Ex.C-2 – legal notice, Ex.C3 to 4 – legal notice,, Ex.C-5 – email, Ex.C-6 – Adhaar card.
6. During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has placed on record account statement for account No.06292151025803 vide Annx.X.
7. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party.
8. Opposite party is directed to release the aforesaid deposited amount of Rs.35000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 13.07.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
