PRESENT

          Complainant - Absent. .                                                           

         Opponent- Absent.                       

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President. )

1.                The complainant has filed complaint for deficiency in service by opposite  party as per section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                According to complainant, Dr. Mrs. Surjit Kaur Bava, she availed the service of opposite party for promotion of the business of the complainant firm i.e. M/s Ultra  Laser Clinic.

3.                The complainant alleged that, initially the contract was for six months and an amount of Rs.36,000/- was paid to opponent M/s Just Dial Pvt. Ltd.

4.                The complainant alleged that, opposite party after receiving the full payment in advance for the contract of service  for six months, intentionally withdrawn the amount through (ECS) to the amount of Rs.42,000/-

5.                The complainant sent two notices for refund of the said amount which was illegally withdrawn by opp.  It is prayed for direction to opponent to refund said amount, as well as claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Two lacs) and cost of Rs.30,000/-.

6.                The opponent filed written statement and denied all allegations specifically made in the complaint.  It is alleged that contract entered by complainant with opponent is purely on principal to principal basis and complainant is not a consumer.

7.                The opponent alleged that contract was for personal service and for commercial purpose i.e. Advertisement of business, which is not allowed as per law.

8.                The opponent alleged that complainant entered into a contract with opponent on 18.10.2010 for a value of Rs.65,276/- plus applicable taxes for one year.  It is stated that concerned party executed Electronic clearing system (ECS) authorizing ECS payment of Rs.6,000/- w.e.  from 25.11.2010.

9.                The opponent alleged that amount was recovered as per the agreement and terms of contract.  It is prayed for dismissed of service.

10.              We have perused all the documents produced on record by both parties.  Admittedly the contract was entered between the complainant and opponents for promotion of business as stated in para 1 of the complaint.

11.              Admittedly certain amount was paid and opponent was authorized to recover the amount through ECS.  We have perused the terms of contract dated 18.10.201.

12.              The dispute is regarding the performance of contractual obligations by the respective parties. The complainant alleged that, opponent has committed breach of contract and recovered amount.

13.              The record shows opponent withdrawn amount of Rs.6,000/- on 2.12.2010, 27.12.2010, 25.01.2011, 25.02.2011, 25.03.2011, 25.04.2011 and 25.05.2011 through ECS.

14.              The complainant challenged the authority of opponent to withdraw said amount and alleged that documents on which contract is based are different. 15.            The complainant alleged that opponent made changes in the document and over writing is made on the documents relating to payment details.   It is alleged opp. has misused the blank signed customer campaign form.

16.              We are of the view , that in order to determine all these issues, recording of oral evidence and detail examination of the documents on the basis of cross examination is necessary, which is not proper in the summary way.

17.              Hence, we hold that, complainant is as liberty to move before proper court, if advised for seeking   remedy for breach of contract and other allegations.

18.              In the result, we pass the following order.

                                         O R D E R

1.       RBT Complaint case No.328/2011  is dismissed.

2.       No order as to cost.

3.       Copy of this order be sent to both parties.