BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIOIN, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 872 of 2019
Date of Institution: 21.11.2019
Date of Decision:28.9.2021
Sh. Jarmanjit Singh S/o Sh. Manjit Singh R/o House No. 51. Ekta Bhawan, Ranjitpura, Chheharta, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- M/s. Urban Stand Media through authorized person Sh. Jasmeet Singh Office at No. A-207/208, Vipin Garden , Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059
- Sh. Jasmeet Singh Authorized person of M/s. Urban Stand Media Office at No. A-207/208, Vipin Garden , Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( now u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Result : Complaint Allowed
Cases Referred:-
Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Karn Kant Aggarwal,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Ex-parte
Quorum
Sh. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President
Sh.Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President
1. Order of this commission will dispose of the present complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now covered u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
Brief facts and pleadings
2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite parties have approached the complainant for providing their services of business promotion, advertisement of business, online promotions, website designing and creation, online business strategy etc. with various plans and packages . The complainant went to New Delhi in June 2019 and visited the opposite parties office to know the full details of all the packages and plans for creation/designing of website alongwith various online promotion for his business. Believing upon the opposite parties efficacious, tempting and plausible assurance, the complainant has taken the package of Rs. 2,50,000/- in total for creation/designing of website alongwith registration of domain, creation of advertisement, maintaining the website for 3 years alongwith promoting the business of the complainant in various manners for continuous period of 3 years both (online & offline) and earnest money of Rs. 50000/- in cash was given to the opposite parties by the complainant. The opposite parties have taken time period of 1 month from the complainant for creation, registration and designing of business website of the complainant and assured the complainant that full process will be completed within stipulated period of time. The opposite parties have again approached the complainant on 27.7.2019 for making the rest of the balance payment for completion of the abovesaid work. But as the complainant demanded the sample of the website designs alongwith the domain details from opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.2 has refused to provide the same without the balance payment as per the terms & conditions of opposite party No.1. The complainant again made payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- through online payment transaction to the bank account of opposite party on 28.7.2019 from bank account No. 201003078083 in Indusind Bank Amritsar through IMPS Ref.No. 920918389094 to account No. 65148689339 of opposite party with State Bank of India, Mohan Garden Branch, New Delhi as per the details given by the opposite party. The complainant again contacted the opposite parties in August 2019 for providing the complete details of the website & promotion strategy plan but opposite parties led to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Finally complainant approached opposite party on 2.9.2019 apprised the situation and asked the opposite parties to provide the necessary details. But the opposite party No.2 flatly refused to provide necessary details or to refund/return any advance amount for the said work and did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant has suffered extreme harassment both mental and physical on account of the act of the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency in service . The complainant has also suffered heavy monetary loss due to negligence of the opposite parties and also led to heavy travelling expenses to visit opposite party New Delhi office for which opposite parties are liable jointly or severally to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- i.e. travelling expenses of Rs. 50000/-, compensation amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- legal expenses of Rs. 25000/- and refund of money of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment till repayment to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite parties be directed to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- paid by the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment till date of repayment thereof ;
(b) Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- for causing great mental pain, agony, harassment suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency of the opposite parties;
(c ) Travelling expenses of Rs. 25000/- for travelling to New Delhi several times may also be awarded to the complainant ;
(d) Litigation expenses of Rs. 25000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
(e) Any other relief to which the complainants may be found entitled may also be awarded to the complainants.
Hence, this complaint.
3. On receiving the complaint, opposite party was summoned for 30.1.2020. But inspite of the service, none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and vide order dated 30.1.2020, the opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte.
Points for Determination
4. From the pleadings the following are the points to be determined by this Commission:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service the part of the opposite party in initially not providing the sample of website designs alongwith domain details inspite of receiving hefty amount and later on by not refunding the deposited amount to the complainant ?
- If point No.1 is proved , whether the complainant is entitled for compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and also entitled for litigation expenses , if so , to what amount ?
Evidence of the complainant and Arguments
5. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 transaction statement, Ex.C-2 bank transaction message, Ex.C-3 copy of web page of opposite party, Ex.C-4 copy of website contact page of opposite party, Ex.C-5 copy of bank statement and closed his evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
Findings
7. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case , the contention of the complainant is that opposite parties have approached the complainant for providing their services of business promotion, advertisement of business, online promotions, website designing and creation, online business strategy etc. with various plans and packages and in this regard he went to New Delhi in June 2019 and visited the opposite parties office to know the full details of all the packages and plans for creation/designing of website alongwith various online promotion for his business. Believing upon the opposite parties efficacious, tempting and plausible assurance, the complainant has taken the package of Rs. 2,50,000/- in total for creation/designing of website alongwith registration of domain, creation of advertisement, maintaining the website for 3 years alongwith promoting the business of the complainant in various manners for continuous period of 3 years both (online & offline) and earnest money of Rs. 50000/- in cash was given to the opposite parties by the complainant. The case of the complainant that the opposite parties assured the complainant that full process will be completed within stipulated period of time. However, the opposite parties have again approached the complainant on 27.7.2019 for making the rest of the balance payment for completion of the abovesaid work. But when the complainant demanded the sample of the website designs alongwith the domain details from opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.2 has refused to provide the same without the balance payment as per the terms & conditions of opposite party No.1. The complainant again made payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- through online payment transaction to the bank account of opposite party on 28.7.2019 from bank account No. 201003078083 in Indusind Bank Amritsar through IMPS Ref.No. 920918389094 to account No. 65148689339 of opposite party with State Bank of India, Mohan Garden Branch, New Delhi and in this regard complainant has placed on record copy of bank statement Ex.C-5. The complainant again contacted the opposite parties in August 2019 for providing the complete details of the website & promotion strategy plan but opposite parties led to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and finally flatly refused to provide necessary details or to refund/return any advance amount for the said work and did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the act of the opposite party in initially not providing the complete details of the website & promotion strategy plan despite making hefty amount to the opposite party and later on by not refunding the deposited amount to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
8. The Commission has gone through the facts of the case and query has been raised from the Ld.counsel for the complainant that whether he falls within the definition of consumer and in support of this query Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that whether goods bought by a person are for a ‘commercial purpose’ is a question of fact and it should be decided by taking into account all the facts and circumstances in each cash. If the goods have been used by the purchaser himself for commercial use then he would be considered to be a consumer under this Act but if that person does not use the goods himself and engages some other person to operate that particular good then such person will not come under the ambit of the definition of ‘consumer’.
9. The abovesaid law squarely covers the case of the complainant as he is having business of management, production, visa arrangements and assistance in production of songs/videos etc and for their business promotion , he has availed the services of the opposite party. So the complainant has used the services of the opposite party for himself for commercial use, as such he becomes the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
10. In order to prove his case the complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of transfer success Ex.C-1, copy of message showing transfer of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the account of opposite party Ex.C-2 , copy of web page of opposite party Ex.C-3, copy of website contact page Ex.C-4, copy of bank statement Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence. On the other hand evidence adduced by the complainant remained opposite parties failed to put in appearance despite service and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.1.2020.
11. In view of the above discussion, it stands proved on record that the complainant deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- out of total package of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the opposite party for hiring the service of the opposite party vide which the opposite party was bound to provide the services within one month as assured by the opposite party . Out of deposited amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- the complainant paid Rs. 50000/- in cash to the opposite party but has not issued any receipt and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 28.7.2019 which was proved through bank statement Ex. C-5 and in order to prove the above facts of deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- the complainant has also filed his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and the same remained unrebutted as opposite parties have failed to put in appearance and proceeded ex-parte and as such impliedly admitted the case of the complainant. As the opposite party failed to provide the services for which they have charged hefty amount from the complainant , as such the opposite parties are liable to refund the deposited amount to the complainant. Hence, point No.(i) and (ii) are decided in favour of the complainant and the complaint is allowed ad following relief is granted to the complainant :-
- Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization to the complainant.
- So far as compensation , since the complainant was compelled to knock the door of this Commission and the opposite parties did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant and certainly this litigation could have been avoided . It is well settled principle of law that compensation term has not been explained in the Consumer Protection Act, however this Act is based on principle of equity, good concise and natural justice and the Commission is empowered to provide compensation after assessing the facts of each case. As the complainant has suffered a lot of mental as well as physical agony due to the act of the opposite parties, as such the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant .
Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission.
Announced in Open Commission (Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra) President
Dated: 28.9.2021
(Jatinder Singh Pannu)
Member
