By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The complainant is running a business in the name and style of M/s. Falcon Events. The business is concerned mainly in event management. In order to expand and diversify the complainants business activities, it was decided to open a website highlighting the business, its missions and visions, its activities contact address and the like which is the need of hour in present stiff competition in business field. The complainant was made to believe that the respondents were specialized in developing websites and was given a quotation showing their rate. As per the quotation the total cost would work up to the tune of Rs.8400/- and the delivery of the order would be effected within 15 days. Accordingly on 18.9.08 the order was placed and an amount of Rs.2000/- in cash was paid as advance. As per the order form the total cost works to the tune of Rs.14,000/-. On 6.10.08 4th respondent contacted the complainant requesting for further payment and sought for Rs.5000/- for developing the website. It was paid. On 18.10.08 when the final product was shown, the complainant was not satisfied as the matter did not contain the contents as envisaged. The logo was not seen in the home page. On 28.10.2008 5th respondent contacted the complainant to inform that the final product was completed and asked to make a further payment of Rs.4500/-. But it was not paid because it was the exact replica of the final product delivered to the complainant on 18.10.2008. Due to the recalcitrant attitude of the respondents the complainant has suffered mental loss and mental stress. Hence the complaint.
2. The averments in the version of first respondent in brief are that the date of quotation is not stated in the complaint. The quotation was given on 29.7.08. It is the condition that within 10 days of quotation order should be given to respondents. There are every possibility of changes in soft ware field and there is change in rate also. But the complainant had given the order only after 50 days. The rate increased to Rs.14,000/- because the complainant wanted features of video clipping, enquiry and programming and it was intimated to complainant and agreed the same. The complainant had given an advance of Rs.2000/- only. On 19.9.08 a sample was served to complainant but it was not liked and the complainant suggested some changes and those changes were accepted and another samples were given. The video clipping is not delivered to the respondents. Within 5 days site was hosted but the complainant did not pay anything. After on several requests she had paid Rs.5000/-. The balance amount is not paid by her. There was no deficiency in service from this respondent. Hence dismiss.
3. The other respondents set exparte.
4. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) If so, was there any deficiency in service committed by
respondents?
(3) Other reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence consists of oral testimony of RW1, Exts. P1 to P4 and Exts. R1 to R10.
6. Point No.1: It is the case that the complainant is running a business in the name and style of Falcon Events. The business is concerned mainly in event management. It is also stated that in order to expand and diversify the complainant’s business activities it was decided to open a website highlighting the business, its missions and visions etc. These averments on the part of complainant herself would show that the complainant is conducting a commercial venture. The commercial consumers are excluded from the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is filed to get back an amount of Rs.7000/- which was paid to respondents for opening a website for highlighting her business. The transaction with the respondents was with regard to her commercial activities and she has no locus standi to file this complaint before the Forum. There is no averment that she is conducting the same exclusively for the purpose of earning her livelihood by means of self employment. Even if this averment is pleaded it can be seen that the event management is mainly for profit making and commercial activity. There are several rulings of Hon’ble National Commission with regard to exclusion of commercial consumers from the purview of Consumer Protection Act. 2012(2) CPR (NC) 315 states the decision of Hon’ble National Commission that commercial projects cannot be subject matter of consumer complaint. It is found that this is a commercial project. Ext. R3 is the newspaper in which the details of the business of complainant were shown. The complainant has no case that the news are fake. She also did not adduce any oral evidence to prove her livelihood. She has no such case in the complaint also. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
7. The complainant claims Rs.7000/- from the respondents which was given for developing the website. She has produced Exts. P1 to P4 only and no evidence is adduced to establish her case in the complaint. At the same time the first respondent produced Exts. R1 to R10 and stepped into the box also. He is examined as RW1 and deposed in tune with his case. He has established his case and it is found that the contentions of RW1 are true. The case of complainant remained disproved and on this ground also the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 23rd day of July 2013.
