IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Present: - Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.281/2018
Anju.J.Prakash,
W/o Jinan, Avittam,Pattathanam Nagar,
Pattathanam P.O., Kollam : Complainant
(By Adv.V.JyothiSagar&Adv.Bobin V.L.)
V/s
- M/s Grian Technologies Pvt.Ltd.(Griantek)
32/1 Cape road, Veppamoodu Jn.,
Nagercoil-01.
- Suja S.,
C/o Chenthil Kumar
(Business Co-ordinator, GraintekPvt.Ltd.)
47/1 Vellalar East street
VayalVAdassery, Agastheeswaram,
Nagarcoil 629001. : Opposite parties
- Beryl P., W/o Mark Rejo
238 A2, Carmel Nagar,
Raman Puthoor
Agastheeswaram, Tamil Nadu 629004.
(By Adv.Boris Paul)
ORDER
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
1. The averments in the complaint as stands amended in short are as follows:-
Complainant is an Asst.Professor in a reputed Engineering College and she is a research scholar, conducting her research under the Noorul-Islam Centre for Higher Education. The complainant had availed service of the opposite party for consideration as such the complainant and opposite parties are in the bond of consumer and service provider relationship as defined in the Consumer Protection
Act. The complainant has attended seven doctoral committee and published 3 journals in connection with her Phd. work. In order to publish her 4th journal as the final phase, she made enquiry through internet, she came to know that the 1st opposite party is engaged in assisting the scholars in their journal writing and publication. As such the complainant has sent a message to the 1st opposite party, which was responded by the 2nd opposite party as the business co-ordinator of 1st opposite party. Through telephonic conversation the 2nd opposite party assured that they are rendering services to the Phd.scholars and further she claims that she is the business co-ordinator of the 1st opposite party who is engaged in rendering service to the scholars in the field of innovations, research and development etc.on payment of consideration. Further she assured that their service is from beginning to end ie.until achieving the aim of Phd. In order to get the service she has demanded a registration fee of Rs.10,000/- for which bank details were sent to the complainant. While the 2nd opposite party made the complainant to believe that on registration, the 1st opposite party is having experience in similar work and agreed to do all needful things to publish the journal of complainant in a reputed international journal of having SCI standard.
2. The 2nd opposite party, the business Co-ordinator of 1st opposite party ought to have acted in good faith, as a responsible officer. The entire promise and assurance were given by her as the Co-ordinator of 1st opposite party. All the correspondence with complainant were done by her through the official website, using the name of 1st opposite party. The 3rd opposite party, it the account holder, to which the money dealings were done by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Hence all of them having vicarious liability to complainant in discharging the obligation towards her. By believing the promise of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant has sent the registration fee to the account given by the 2nd opposite party. The said account is in the name of one L.A.Prakash designated as Research Programmer, GraintekPvt.Ltd. In order to have an idea of publishers the 2nd opposite party has send a list of publishers and further she demanded for Rs.5,000/- which was also sent to the account of 3rd opposite party as suggested by the 2nd opposite party.
3. The complainant demanded a list of new updated international journal with its details such as name of publishers, rate time within which it can be published etc. The list which send by the opposite party is having the journal name ‘journal of web engineering’ of Rinton Press published with index. The time to be taken for publishing is stated as 10 days. The complainant has suggested Multi Media tools and applications of Springer publishers. But the 2nd opposite party insisted for publishing in journal of Web Engineering of Rinton press, the explanation given by the 2nd opposite party in avoiding Multi Media is that the said publishers will take much time. Believing the words of the opposite party, the complainant bonafied accepted the suggestion in publishing in the journal of web engineering of Rinton Publishers and as requested by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant has sent her entire paper work to publish in the above said SCI journal. On receipt of paper work the opposite parties have send some comments in order to convince the complainant that they are engaged in editing work. Thereafter they have sent an acceptance letter as editor’s decision which was seems to be forwarded from one Mr.MarkRejo. Thereafter they have suggested for the required balance payment of Rs.95,000/- claim to be the expenses in publishing the work including editing as well as paper handling charge. It is also suggested that Rs.40,000/- has to be credited to the account of third opposite party and the remaining shall be credited to the account of one Mr.Chenthil Kumar for which both account numbers were sent to the complainant. But after short while the 2nd opposite party suggested for crediting the entire amount in the account of 3rd opposite party. Due to the compulsion on the part of complainant’s guide and also in order to publish her work within a time period she was compelled to publish her work as early as possible.
4. As demanded by the 2nd opposite party the complainant has sent the entire amount to the account of 3rd opposite party. Thereupon the 2nd opposite party has send an acknowledgment for the receipt of the amount. Since the account numbers are different and editor’s decisions were found not genuine, the complainant felt something fishy in their work. She demanded to give the link of the publisher’s website. Thereafter the opposite parties have created a mail ID in the name of complainant and sent the password and user ID to her. Later the password Anju 12345 was changed by the complainant. Their attempt is to make it appear that they are bonafide engaged in the publishing work of the journal of the complainant.
5. Since the opposite parties had given different accounts number on different occasions the complainant felt something unusual and contacted the editor of Rinton Press and came to know that the journal of web engineering in which the paper was published is a fake one. The Rinton Press informed the complainant that the real website of web engineering is under the River publishers. The list given by the opposite parties are also noted that web engineer is of the Rinton publishers. The complainant journal was published not in any SCI journal, but it was published as open source data. It doesn’t have the character of patent of the complainant. It was came to know that the site of web engineering of Rinton Publishers is transferred to the Riven Publishers. On further enquiry it is learned that the amount sent by the complainant as directed by the 2nd opposite party are also diverted to the account of 3rd opposite party, which is a recently opened account and the said Beryl P. is none other than wife of one Mr.MarkRejo, who is an ex-employee of the opposite party’s concern. The real web engineering site can be access through www.riverpublishers.com. But the journal in which complainant’s work was published can be accessed to www.journalofwebengineering.com. which is a fake one. Further it is learned that the River Publishers already initiated legal action against the fake website of web engineering. The River Publishers already reported to the international ISSN Centre, in US regarding the creation of fake website. The opposite parties are well aware of all those facts.
6. In connection with the paper work of Phd., the complainant has spent her valuable time of 5 years. She has prepared a valuable thesis in the field of engineering. The proposed article to be published one is her intellectual property which was lost its patent ship due to the irresponsible and fraudulent act of the opposite parties. By considering the value of the complainant thesis, most of the Phd.Scholars quoted the finding of the complainant. Now the complainant is in a stage of dilemma. Due to the unfair trade practice and fraudulent act of the opposite parties, the complainant has sustained irreparable loss and hardship. The work was undergone thorough review by her guide and doctoral committee members. They made their opinion that the said work is having no plagiarism. Since the paper is seems to be published in a fake website it become an online open source data. Due to that reason her thesis will not get the approval. Complainant’s earlier works were published in Scopus indexed journals of International Standard. In order to make an unlawful gain, the opposite parties colluded together and used the name of the 1st opposite party and was misleading the complainant to believe that they are really assisting the complainant in her Phd.work. They had assured the complainant by misleading the facts of publishing the thesis in a fake website and thereby they induced the complainant and obtained an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from the complainant. In order to achieve their ill motive they have misrepresented and concealed the fact of creation of fake website and in order to convince the complainant, they gave a password and user ID and published her work as open data source.
7. The loss sustained to the complainant is caused by the opposite parties by publishing her work in a fake journal and they deceived the complainant and obtained an unlawful gain of Rs.1,10,000/- which is an unfair trade practice, which causes damages to the complainant, both to her property monetary as well as reputation which is irreparable.
8. In order to solve the contingency complainant’s counsel has sent separate notice to opposite parties 1 to 3 to take necessary steps either by adding or improving the paper submitted to them by the complainant, so that it can be published without any plagiarism, and published in an international journal of SCI standard as early as possible and if the opposite parties are willing they have to inform the complainant about its feasibility, and time they required for the publishing same in the journal and also suggesting to enter into such terms with the complainant by reduced into writing if they are amenable for the suggestion. The said notice was received by the opposite parties and sent reply evading from the suggestion and accusing one Mr.MarkRejo which according to the opposite parties the person responsible for the entire mischief. At the same time they admitted that 2nd opposite party is the business co-ordinator. The above said acts of the opposite parties amounts to clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
9. Opposite parties 1 to 3 remained exparte. In fact the 3rd opposite party appeared in response to the notice and filed I.A 52/2019 challenging the maintainability of the case which was dismissed after hearing both sides by finding that part of the cause of action has taken place at Kollam within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum/commission. Thereafter 3rd opposite party also has not co-operated with trial nor filed any version and remained exparte. Complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Exts.P1 to P14 series documents. Ext.P1 is the brochure issued by the research programmer from the 1st opposite party. Ext.P2 is Gmail communication dated 30.12.2017 sent to 1st opposite party by the complainant. dated 30.12.2017. Ext.P3 is copy of bank statement of account operated in the name of the husband of the complainant at Kollam from which Rs.5,000/- was sent to 3rd opposite party on 23.03.2018. Ext.P4 list of publishers send by opposite parties to the complainant who is residing at Kollam. Ext.P5 is email communication sent by the complainant and its reply sent by Mark de Jongh, the River Publishers. Ext.P6 series are copy of message sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party and its reply evidencing the entire transactions alleged in the complaint. Ext.P7 is the email communication sent by 2nd opposite party to the complainant forwarding editors decision received from Mark Rejo. Ext.P8 is a copy of email communication by 2nd opposite party on behalf of 1st opposite party communicating the bank account of 3rd opposite party to the complainant also directing to send Rs.65,000/- in the said account. Ext.P9 is copy of account statement of the husband of the complainant from which Rs.30,000+20000 was sent to 3rd opposite party. Ext.P10 is the copy of email sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party communicating her user name and password to 2nd opposite party. Ext.P11 is copy of email sent by the complainant Mark de Jongh seeking the details of change of publisher and its reply. Ext.P12 series in the office copy of lawyer notice sent by on behalf of the complainant to opposite parties 1 to 3 and its postal receipts. Ext.P13 series & P14 series are reply lawyer notices sent at the instance of opposite parties 1 &2 .
10. The unchallenged averments in the complaint coupled with Exts.P1 to P14 series document would reveal the following.
Complainant is an Asst.Professor in a reputed Engineering College and she is a research scholar, conducting her research under the Noorul-Islam Centre for Higher Education. The complainant had availed service of the opposite party by paying consideration as shown Ext.P3, P8 & P9 documents as such the complainant and opposite parties are in the bond of consumer and service provider relationship as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
The complainant has sworn in the proof affidavit that she had attended seven doctoral committee and published 3 journals in connection with her Phd. work. In order to publish her 4th journal as the final phase, she made enquiry through internet and came to know that the 1st opposite party is engaged in assisting the scholars in their journal writing and publication. As such the complainant has sent Ext.P2 message to the 1st opposite party, which was responded by the 2nd opposite party as the business co-ordinator of 1st opposite party. Through telephonic conversation and Ext.P6 series email communications the 2nd opposite party assured that they are rendering services to the Phd.scholars and claims that she is the business co-ordinator of the 1st opposite party who is engaged in rendering service to the scholars in the field of innovations, research and development etc.on payment of consideration that their service is from beginning to end ie.until achieving the aim of Phd. In order to get the service she has demanded a registration fee of Rs.10,000/- for which bank details were sent to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party was also made the complainant to believe through her email communications that the 1st opposite party is having experience in similar work and agreed to do all needful things to publish the journal of complainant in a reputed international journal of having SCI standard.
In order to have an idea of publishers the 2nd opposite party has sent Ext.P4 list of publishers to the complainant and demanded Rs.5,000/- which was also sent to the account of 3rd opposite party as suggested by the 2nd opposite party.
It is also clear from the available materials that the complainant demanded a list of new updated international journal with its details such as name of publishers, rate time within which it can be published etc. Accordingly 2nd opposite party has sent Ext.P4 stating interalia the name of “journal of web engineering” of Rinton Press published with index. The time to be taken for publishing is stated as 10 days. The complainant has suggested Multi Media tools and applications of Springer publishers. But the 2nd opposite party insisted for publishing in journal of Web Engineering of Rinton press, the explanation given by the 2nd opposite party in avoiding Multi Media is that the said publishers will take much time. Believing the words of the opposite party, the complainant bonafied accepted the suggestion in publishing in the journal of web engineering of Rinton Publishers and as requested by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant has sent her entire paper work to publish in the above said SCI journal. On receipt of paper work the opposite parties have sent some comments in order to convince the complainant that they are engaged in editing work. Thereafter they have sent an acceptance letter as editor’s decision which was seems to be forwarded from one Mr.MarkRejo and also required the balance payment of Rs.95,000/- claim to be the expenses in publishing the work including editing as well as paper handling charge. It is also suggested that Rs.40,000/- has to be credited to the account of third opposite party and the remaining shall be credited to the account of one Mr.Chenthil Kumar for which both account numbers were sent to the complainant. But after short while the 2nd opposite party suggested for crediting the entire amount in the account of 3rd opposite party. Due to the compulsion on the part of complainant’s guide and also in order to publish her work within a time period she was compelled to publish her work as early as possible.
As demanded by the 2nd opposite party through email communication the complainant has sent the entire amount to the account of 3rd opposite party from the Bank Account of her husband at Kollam. Thereupon the 2nd opposite party has send an email acknowledgment for the receipt of the amount to the complainant. Since the account numbers are different and editor’s decisions were found not genuine, the complainant felt something fishy in their work. She demanded to give the link of the publisher’s website. Thereafter the opposite parties have created a mail ID in the name of complainant and sent the password and user ID to her. Later the password Anju 12345 was changed by the complainant. Their attempt is to make it appear that they are bonafide engaged in the publishing work of the journal of the complainant.
It is also brought out in evidence that since the opposite parties had given different accounts number on different occasions the complainant felt something unusual and contacted the editor of Rinton Press by sending e-mail communication on 05.10.2018 and received reply on 07.10.2018 and came to know that the journal of web engineering in which the paper was published is a fake one which is evident from Ext.P6 series(A) e-mail communications wherein it is informed that the real website of web engineering is under the River publishers. Ext.P4 list given by the opposite parties also noted that web engineer belongs toRinton publishers. It is clear from the available materials that the complainant’s thesis was published not in any SCI journal, but it was published as open source data. It doesn’t have the character of patent of the complainant. It is also clear from the available materials that the site of web engineering of Rinton Publishers is transferred to the Riven Publishers and the amount sent by the complainant as directed by the 2nd opposite party are to the account of 3rd opposite party, which is a recently opened account and the said 3rd opposite party Beryl P. is none other than wife of one Mr.MarkRejo, who is an ex-employee of the opposite party’s concern. The real web engineering site can be access through www.riverpublishers.com. But the journal in which complainant’s work was published can be accessed to www.journalofwebengineering.com. which is a fake one even as per Ext.P6 series(A) Communication. It is also brought out in evidence that the River Publishers already initiated legal action against the fake website of web engineering. The River Publishers already reported to the international ISSN Centre, in US regarding the creation of fake website. The opposite parties are well aware of all those facts which is evident from Ext.P13 series and P14 series reply notices issued on behalf 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
In connection with the research and paper work of Phd., the complainant has spent her valuable time of 5 years. She has prepared a valuable thesis in the field of engineering. The proposed article to be published is her intellectual property which lost its patent ship due to the irresponsible and fraudulent act of the opposite parties. By considering the value of the complainant thesis, most of the Phd.Scholars quoted the findings of the complainant in the above thesis. Now the complainant is in a stage of dilemma. Due to the unfair trade practice and fraudulent act of the opposite parties, the complainant has sustained irreparable loss and hardship. The work was undergone thorough review by her guide and doctoral committee members. They made their opinion that the said work is having no plagiarism. Since the paper is seems to be published in a fake website it become an online open source data. Due to that reason her thesis will not get the approval. Complainant’s earlier works were published in Scopus indexed journals of International Standard. In order to make an unlawful gain, the opposite parties colluded together and used the name of the 1st opposite party and was misleading the complainant to believe that they are really assisting the complainant in her Phd.work. They had assured the complainant by misleading the facts of publishing the thesis in a fake website and thereby they induced the complainant and obtained an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from the complainant. In order to achieve their ill motive they have misrepresented and concealed the fact of creation of fake website and in order to convince the complainant, they gave a password and user ID and published her work as open data source.
It is also clear from Ext.P12 series lawyer notice and postal receipts that in order to solve the contingency complainant’s counsel has sent separate notice to opposite parties 1 to 3 to take necessary steps either by adding or improving the paper submitted to them by the complainant, so that it can be published without any plagiarism, and published in an international journal of SCI standard as early as possible and if the opposite parties are willing they have to inform the complainant about its feasibility, and time they required for the publishing same in the journal and also suggesting to enter into such terms with the complainant by reduced into writing if they are amenable for the suggestion. The said notice was received by the opposite parties and sent Ext.P13 series & Ext.P14 series reply evading from the suggestion and accusing one Mr.MarkRejo who according to the opposite parties is the person responsible for the entire mischief. At the same time they admitted that 2nd opposite party is the business co-ordinator of the 1st opposite party. The above said acts of the opposite parties amounts to clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the same has caused much damage to the complainant in her intellectual property and also caused much loss of time, money and energy and reputation which is irreparable and the same cannot be equated in terms of money.
It is clear from the available materials that all the correspondence with complainant were done by the 2nd opposite party through the official website, using the name of 1st opposite party. The 3rd opposite party is the account holder, to which the money dealings were done by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Hence all of them having vicarious liability in discharging the obligation towards complainant. By believing the promise of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant has sent the registration fee to the account given by the 2nd opposite party. The said account is in the name of one L.A.Prakash designated as Research Programmer, GraintekPvt.Ltd. The remaining amount was sent in the name of the 3rd opposite party. The materials available on record would indicate that the loss sustained to the
complainant in this regard is caused by the opposite parties by publishing her work in a fake journal instead of publishing the same in an international journal having SCI standards and they deceived her by obtaining an unlawful gain of Rs.1,10,000/- which is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused damages both to property, money as well as reputation of the complainant which is irreparable.
In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get back the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- paid by her from the opposite parties No.1 to 3 and also entitled to get reasonable and sufficient compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- from opposite parties 1 to 3.
On evaluating the entire materials available on record we find merit in the complaint and the same is only to be allowed.
In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms:-
- The opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to refund Rs.1,10,000/- obtained from the complainant along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
- Opposite parties No.1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.
- The opposite parties No.1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
- The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to comply with above directions within 45 days from the date of order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.6,10,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum except for costs from the opposite parties No.1 to 3 jointly and severally and also from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 31st day of August 2022.
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM: Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Brochure of Research Academy GrigamTek (1st opposite party)
Ext.P2 : Gmail communication send to 1st opposite party dated 30.12.2017.
Ext.P3 : copy of bank statement of account in the period of 23.03.2018
Ext.P4 : list of publishers send by opposite parties
Ext.P5 : Copy of Gmail message and reply
Ext.P6 series : Copy of Gmail message and reply
Ext.P6 (a) : Copy of Gmail message and reply
Ext.P6 (b) : Copy of Gmail message and reply
Ext.P6 (c) : Copy of Gmail message and reply
Ext.P6 (d) : Copy of Gmail message and reply
Ext.P6 (e) : Copy of Gmail message and reply
Ext.P6(f) : Copy of Gmail message and reply
Ext.P7 : Copy of letter from opposite party
Ext.P8 : Copy of letter stating the account numbers.
Ext.P9 : Copy of account statement
Ext.P10 : Copy of message stating password and user ID of the complainant
Ext.P11 : Message send by Rinton Press
Ext.P12 series : Advocate notice and postal receipts sent at the instance of complainant to
opposite parties 1 to 3 and its postal receipts
Ext.P13 series : Advocate notice sent at the instance of 1st opposite party and registered cover
Ext.P14 series : Advocate notice sent at the instance of 2nd opposite party and
registered with A/D
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
