Dt. of filing – 13/07/2017
Dt. of Judgement – 09/01/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, President.
This is a consumer complaint filed by complainant namely Wasim Ansari under Section 12 of the consumer protection Act against Opposite Parties namely (1) M/s. Noida Software Technology Park Ltd., (2) M/S. JAINHITS, Division of Noida Software Technology Park Ltd. (3) M/S. JAINHITS C/o. Mutual Technology Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in rendering services on their part.
Case of the complainant in brief is that to earn his livelihood and to run his family, complainant tried to start the business of cable T.V. Operator. As per instruction of the Opposite Parties complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 11,73,000/- for installation of a Mini Down Link Digital Headend Cable Connection which was supposed to be distributed to local people at a rate fixed by the complainant. On 26.03.2016 Opposite Parties kept some machineries /Apparatus in the office of the complainant with assurance that the connection will be installed very shortly. The said machineries/Apparatus is lying in the office of the complainant but the Opposite Parties have not installed the connection . Complainant was thus forced to lodge a police complaint. A legal notice has also been sent by the complainant but all-in-vein. Opposite Parties have neither installed the connection nor have refunded the money. Thus the present complaint petition is filed praying for directing the Opposite Parties to install the cable connection or alternatively to refund Rs. 11,73,000/- with interest, to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Opposite parties have contested the case by filing written version denying the allegation made in the complaint contending inter alia that complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Case will lie before TDSAT as per TRAI Act. Complainant has not paid the complete payment to the Opposite parties though the Opposite Parties in good faith performed their part of obligation and sent the Dish accessory and antenna etc to the complainant. Complainant himself is a wrong doer and thus the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.
Complainant has annexed document relating to payment, delivery challan of O.P No.1 , offer letter for installation of Mini Downlink Digital Head End, copy of complain made before Police and Legal Notice sent to the Opposite Party.
In course of evidence, Parties adduced their respective evidence by filing affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and reply thereto. Complainant has also filed written notes of argument thereafter.
So the following points require determination:-
- Whether this complaint is maintainable in its present form?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed?
Decision with reason
Point No.1 :
At the outset it may be pertinent to point out that a petition was filed by the Opposite Parties challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ and as per TRAI Act, it is TDSAT which has jurisdiction to try the case. Said petition was heard and disposed of by the Forum vide order dated 28.12.2018 rejecting the petition mainly on the ground that dispute has to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence filed by the Parties and the point agitated could even be taken- up after trial.
On perusal of the complaint petition and the documents relied upon by the complainant, it appears that there is no specific agreement apart from an offer letter dated 04.03.2015 appears to have been sent to complainant by the authorised signatory of M/s. JAINHITS. So it is not clear what was the total consideration amount agreed to be paid.
According to complainant as stated in complaint, he has paid Rs. 11,73,000/-and ready to pay the balance amount which is payable to the OPs as soon as connection is provided. So it is evident that Rs. 11,73,000/- is only part payment towards providing the service. Complainant remained silent what is the balanced amount which is to be paid. Complainant has also lodged a Police complaint and a copy of the same is filed in this case. Said police complain is dated 21.10.2016, Wherein complainant has stated that he has paid Rs. 6,73,000/- by cheque on 07.03.2016, Rs. 5,00,000/- by deposit through bank and he had already given more three cheques amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/-.
So according to Police complaint, which is the own document of complainant, he has paid total sum of Rs. 20,73,000/- to the Opposite Parties. So it clearly suggests that total consideration price towards the transaction/service was much more than Rs. 20,73,000/- as complainant has also stated in the petition of complaint that he is ready to pay balance amount which is payable.
As per section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods or the services and the compensation, if any, does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-. So it is well settled law that it is value of the goods or services hired and compensation , if any claim, determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. In this case the total amount which according to the complainant, has been paid by him towards the value of hiring services (Rs.20,73,000/-) itself exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum and if Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost claimed by the complainant, is added than it goes much more beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. So on this score, complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and thus the complaint has to be returned for its presentation before the proper Forum.
This point is thus answered accordingly.
Point No.2 :
As the complaint is not maintainable, it will be redundant to enter into discussion with regard to merits of the case.
Hence,
Ordered
CC/388/2017 is disposed of as not maintainable. Complaint petition be returned to the complainant for its presentation before the appropriate Forum.
