Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/61/2021

M/s. Orange Innovation web Designing /Web hosting /Software Development Rep by its M.D mr. Sounder.S, North Main Street, Tiruppur 641 601. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Sri Gurusarva institute of Management Rep by its CEO P. Arunachalam, 2nd Floor, New Market Stre - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar

29 Dec 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

PRESENT:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH,                 PRESIDENT

                  TMT. Dr. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                        MEMBER

 

F.A. No.61/2021

 

(Against the Order made in C.C.No.90/2018, dated:22.03.2019  on the file of the District Commission, Tiruppur) 

 

  WEDNESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

 

 

M/s. I Orange Innovation,

Web Designing/ Web Hosting / Software’s Development,

Represented by its Managing Director

Mr. S. Soundar,

Dhanam Towers, 3^rd Floor,

Binny Compound North Main Street,

Tiruppur – 641 601.                                                 ..  Appellant / Opposite party. 

 

-Versus-

 

M/s. Sri Gurusarva Institute of Management,

Represented by its CEO

Mr. P. Arunachalam,

No.16, Thulasi Rao, 2^nd Street,

2^nd Floor, New Market Street,

Tiruppur – 641 604.                                                .. Respondent / Complainant.  

 

Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite party        : M/s. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar

Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant       : M/s. Balaji Thirumoorthy

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing today on 29.12.2021 and on hearing the arguments of the both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU.  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.  ( Open Court).  

1.         This appeal has been preferred under section 15 r/w section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Appellant /opposite party  against the order of the District Commission, Tiruppur made in C.C.No.90/2018, dt. 22.03.2019 allowing the complaint partly and directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of complaint to till date of the Order, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

2.         For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, Tiruppur.

3.       The factual background giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;-

The complainant who was engaged in the business of providing coaching class for Chartered accountant examination aspirants and C.A., C.S., and C.M.A. Courses had filed this complaint against the opposite party who was service provider for web designing.  The opposite party issued a quotation on 27.03.2018  to the complainant for construction of a updated website and domain registration.   In pursuance of the same, the complainant  issued a cheque for Rs.5,000/- through cheque bearing No.642391 of Axis Bank, Tirupur.   On 20.04.2018, the complainant received a sample Demo link from the opposite party but the same did not work out and on 02.05.2018 the complainant informed the opposite party about the same but of no response from the opposite party as on 16.05.2018 the 12^th Examination results were to be announced which is very crucial for the complainant’s website and hence, on 15.05.2008  sent an email to the opposite party informing the urgency but all the efforts were in vein.   Thus, the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not effecting the updated website enabling the complainant to get more admissions claiming the following reliefs:-

1. To refund Rs.5,000/- paid to him as advance along with interest at the market rate
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony
3. To pay the cost of the complaint.

4.       In spite of sufficient notice, the opposite party did not appear in person or through Counsel.  Hence, the opposite party was set ex-parte.

5.       The complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.

6.  The District Commission on perusing the pleadings and materials allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of complaint to the date of the Order and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/.  Aggrieved by the same, the opposite party had preferred the present appeal.  It was contended by the Counsel for the appellant / opposite party that the complainant is not a Consumer as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as the transaction involved is a commercial transaction.  Thus he argued that the complaint itself is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in their part.   He sought for the Order of the District Commission to be set aside and he prayed for an opportunity to be provided to him to contest the complaint on merits before the District Commission.

7.       On hearing the submissions made by the Counsel for Appellant we are of the opinion that an opportunity may be given to the appellant / opposite party to defend his case before the District Commission by submitting appropriate pleadings and documents.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we ordered that the appeal may be allowed on payment of a cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid in favour of the Registrar, S.C.D.R.C. on or before 28.12.2021.    

8.       Today, when the matter came up for consideration before this Commission, it was represented by the Counsel for the Appellant that the cost has been paid and he also filed a Compliance Memo to that effect. 

In the result, we set aside the Order dt.22.03.2019 and made in C.C. No.90/2018 of the District Commission, Tiruppur and the appellant / opposite party is directed to appear before the District Commission on 09.03.2022 and file his written version, proof affidavit, documents and written arguments if any, on the same day.

The District Commission shall dispose off the complaint on merits after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible as per law.

Both parties shall abide by the Order of the District Commission regarding the mandatory deposit already made by the appellant / opposite party before this Commission.

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                R. SUBBIAH, 

             MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT