DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of November 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 05.05.22
CC/78/2022
Sajas. C.J
S/o Jabbar. C.K
Cheramkulangara House,
Parutipully (PO)
Palakkad
Pin 678573 - Complainant
(Adv. K.V.Surendran)
Vs
1. Muhammed, S/o Mariyam
Mundayodan poyil, Edacheri,
Irangannur, Vadakar, Kozhikkode.
Pin 673505.
2. Manu.S.Nair,
S/o K.M. Sivaraman Nair, Karakattu, Anickadu,
Pallikkathodu, Kottayam.
Pin : 586 503.
(Both ex-parte)
- Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The Opposite parties are conducting business in the name ‘Watermark Digital Solutions’ and doing the works of developing Mobile and Web application as well as the installation of new application. Based on the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant approached the opposite parties for developing of application named “Qatar Dalil”. The total charges demanded for the work was Rs. 2 lakhs and the complainant paid Rs. 80,000/- as first instalment through Google pay on 20.08.2021 and the agreement was entered in to between them on 24.08.2021. As per the agreement, the application has to be delivered within 60 days from the date of agreement.
But after the receipt of 1st instalment, the opposite parties did not provide the application and on repeated demands made by the complainant, they showed him a demo regarding the application. The complainant pointed out that the application is not proper and after that the opposite parties kept silent regarding the installation of the application in the name of the complainant.
The complainant contacted the opposite parties through phone calls and Whats App messages for the correct installation of the application; but there was no response from them. The complainant had provided all the necessary details for providing the application. After showing the demo, opposite parties were purposefully inactive and never provided any application to the complainant. The act of the opposite parties in not completing the development and installation of the application after receiving an advance payment amount to Deficiency in service on their part . The conduct of the opposite parties had caused mental stress and agony to the complainant.
So this complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant and to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation suffered by the complainant and other appropriate reliefs.
2. After admitting complaint, notices were issued to both opposite parties. Notice to the first opposite party returned stating ‘unclaimed’. So his name was called in open court and was set ex-parte. Notice was served on 2nd opposite party through mail and as there was no representation, he was also set ex-parte. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked from his side. Evidence closed and heard the complainant.
3. The following points arise for consideration in this case.
1. Whether there is any Deficiency in service/Un Trade Practice on the part
opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
3. Reliefs as cost and compensation?
4. Point No.1
As per complainant, he approached the opposite parties who were engaged in the business of developing mobile and web application and installation of new application for developing an application named “Quatar Dalil”. They entered into an agreement for this on 24.08.21. As per the agreement the total amount for updating the application was Rs. 2 lakhs.
5. The complainant produced the agreement entered into between them which is marked as Exhibit A1. As per Exhibit A1, the amount has to be paid in 3 instalments.
1. 40% before starting the work.
2. 40% when the mobile app becomes ‘live’.
3. Balance 20% has to be given, 30 days after the mobile app becomes ‘live’.
The complainant made an advance payment of Rs. 40,000/- on 19.08.21 and paid another 40,000/- on 24.08.21.(Endorsement on the back of Exhibit A1)
Exhibits A2 to A4 shows the Google payment made by complainant to the opposite parties. Exhibit A5 is the invoice dated 24.08.21 issued by the opposite parties for the receipt of 80,000/-.
6. So the complainant had made payments as per Exhibit A1 agreement. The complainant’s grievance is that after the receipt of the amount, the opposite parties neglected and abstained from, their work. On repeated demands made by the complainant, the opposite parties had showed only a demo regarding the application and the complainant had pointed out that it is not proper and not as per his requirements. After that, they did not even respond. So according to the complaint, the opposite parties did not act as per their contract after the receipt of payment, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
7. The 1st opposite party’s notice returned ‘unclaimed’ and 2nd opposite party did not appear “before the Commission even after receipt of notice and both opposite parties were set ex-parte. As the opposite parties remained ex-parte, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.
Points 2 to 3
From the evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear that there is Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The conduct of the opposite parties had caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for that.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
1. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs.80,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% from 24.08.2021 till payment.
2. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5000/- as cost of the litigation.
Pronounced in open court on this the 15th day of November,2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 –Photocopy of the agreement between the parties dated: 24.08.2021
Ext.A2 – Google pay receipt dated: 20.08.2021.
Ext.A3 – Google pay receipt dated: 24.08.2021.
Ext.A4 - Google pay receipt dated : 24.08.2021.
Ext. A5 – Invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 24.08.2021
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Witness examined from the side of the complainant .- Nil
Witness examined from the side of opposite parties.- Nil
Cost- 5,000/-
