CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/309/15

          Date of Institution:-    06.07.2015

          Order Reserved on:- 15.01.2024

                          Date of Decision:-      17.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

BrijendraDeeptiGeeta Education Soceity

E-107,Jawahar Park, Devli Road,

New Delhi - 110080

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

M/s Innovative Financial Advisors Private Ltd.

24/30 Ground Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate,

Phase-III, New Delhi - 110020

.…..Opposite Party

Per Dr. HarshaliKaur, Member

1. The complainant is an education society that paid Rs.168540/- to the OP for fund raising and a promise that the entire subscription amount paid would be refunded within 30 days of completion of the deadline, i.e. 16.08.2016. Annexure-1 is the contract executed between the parties, and Annexure1A is the receipt issued by the OP for the said payment. Annexure-1B is the copy of the cheque,and Annexure-1C is the certificate of the complainant society.

2. The OPstates that after completion of a deadline, the OP gave frivolous excuses and delayed payment to the complainant society, due to which two registered letters,Annexure-2 and 2A, were sent to the OP to refund the paid amount.

3. When the OP did not take cognizance of the complainant's grievance, the complainant filed the present complaint as a last resort U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and prayed for directions to the OP to return the money paid along with interest, to compensate suitably for the mental agony and harassment faced by the OP.

4. On notice, the OP filed their Reply. In their Reply, the OP company claimed that the complainant society was not a consumer andany dispute that arose was to be decided by the recourse of arbitration as given in Article 6 of the agreement dated 09.11.2013 executed between the parties as preliminary objections.

5. On merits, the OP alleged that all the tasks assigned to the OP company were completed within the stipulated time, and a project report dated 12.11.2013(Ex.RW1/5) was sent to the complainant via email. Further, the budget of the project was also sent in the form of an Excel sheet(Ex.RW-1/6).Hence, the complaint isliable to be dismissed.

6. The complainant filed therejoinder and affidavit of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Dubey, President of the complainant society who, stated that he has signed the cheque for the consideration amount paid for the service that the OP was hired to perform.Annexure2 is a copy of the cheque with his signature. He further reiterated the averments made in the complaint. The OP filed the affidavit of Sh. Amit Kumar, Manager Administration of the OP Companywho, also echoed the statements made in the Reply filed by the OP.

7. Both parties filed their written arguments on 24.08.2016. The present complaint was relisted several times for final arguments.After we joined this Commission, the notice was sent to both parties to appear and address oral final arguments. Oral arguments were addressed by the AR of the complainant society on 15.01.2024 and by the Ld. Counsel of the OP on 30.01.2024.

8. The Ld. Counsel of the OP also filed a summary/written argument stating therein that the entire payment received from the complainant society for the hired service,including the service tax totalling Rs.1,68,540/-, had been refunded to the complainant's account vide three separate payments through NEFT. The copy of the receipts were annexed as R-1 (Colly) along with the written arguments filed. It was further mentioned that the complainant society was not entitled to any interest upon the service charge fees and service tax amount as the same had been refunded and can only claim compensation, if any.

9. We have carefully perused the documents filed by the contesting parties and have also gone through the facts and circumstances in the present complaint.

10. We find that the complainant availed the services of the OPthrough the president of the education society and paid Rs.1,68,540/-out of the total payable amount of Rs.674160/- towards the service feeto hire the service of the OP companyto raise committed funds of Rs.50 lakh. The balance amount of Rs.5,05,620/- was to be paid within 72 hours of the disbursement of the first instalment or upon signing the donor contract, as mentioned in Article 2 of the contract duly signed by both parties.

11. When the deadline was over, the complainant wrote a letter dated 23.01.2015 and again on 16.04.2015 to the OP expressing the failure on the OP's part to deliver the promised service and the harassment faced by the complainant due to their deficient service. Despite several emails and communications when the complainant was not able to get the refund as was committed by the OP in Article 7.8 of IFA Standard Warranty forming part of the contract executed between the parties on 09.11.2013 wherein it was clarified as below:-

7.8 IFA Standard Warranty

• if the service provider is unable to raise 75% of the committed value 50% of the subscription amount paid till date is refunded within 30 days of completion of deadline.
• If the service provider is unable to raise 50% of the committed value the entire subscription amount paid till the date is refunded within 30 days of completion of deadline.

12. The OP after filing the Reply and denying any deficiency in service filed the receipts of refund annexed along with their written arguments(R-1 Colly)stating therein that they had refunded the entire consideration amount of Rs.1,68,540/- to the complainant through NEFT transactions,which included a service tax duly deposited by the OP with the service tax department against the invoice no.IFA/I/13/45 dated 09.11.2013. Hence, the complainant was not entitled to any interest on the service charge fees as the same has been refunded.

13. In our view, the fact that the OP refunded the entire consideration amountto the complainant society paid on 11.09.2013 amounting to Rs.1,68,540/-in the account of the complainant education society vide reference no.IMPS1447231673, 1447956670 and 1448003718 on 2.01.2024, 25.01.2024 and 25.01.2024, respectively, via NEFT transactionis tantamount to an admission of deficiency of service on the part of the OP and hence the OP is liable to compensate the complainant and the interest payable for the period the amount was not refunded shall serve the ends of justice.

14. Thus, holding the OP deficient in service, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay the interest on the amount of Rs.168540/- @6% from the date of payment,i.e.11.09.2013till the refundwas initiated and credited into the account of the complainant society, i.e. on 24.01.2024 since the OP undoubtedly enjoyed the interest on the amount paid by the complaint.No other order as to cost as interest granted in the present complaint shall adequately meet the end of justice.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 17.05.2024.