COMPLAINT FILED: 29.05.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 03rd AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1233/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Bhavesh Vora,<br /> Director,<br /> Sernet Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> B/201, <br /> Hema Classic Shopping Centre,<br /> S.V.Road,<br /> Opp: New Era Cinema,<br /> Malad (West),<br /> Mumbai - 64.<br /> <br /> Advocate (Sampat Anand Shetty)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Religare Technova Ltd.,<br /> (formerly known as “Asian CERC Information Technology Limited”),<br /> B-7, 17th 1st Main,<br /> KHB Colony,<br /> 5th Block,<br /> Koramangala Layout,<br /> Bangalore – 560 095.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and to refund of advance of Rs.1,55,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant availed a software from the OP thereby paid Rs.1,55,000/- on 15.03.2007. OP is required to install the said software purchased by the complainant immediately. But inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant OP failed to keep up its promise. Nearly after the lapse of 40 to 45 days, it was installed. But it was not working to the satisfaction of the complainant. When complainant made the complaint he was promised that they will rectify the earlier mistake in the software, but nothing is done by the OP. For no fault of his he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss in the business. Even he wrote a letter to OP to redress his grievance but it went in futile. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief’s accordingly. <br /> <br /> 4. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were issued to the OP. though OP was duly served with the notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appears to be bonafide and reasonable. Hence, OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. <br /> <br /> 6. It is the case of the complainant that he placed an order for purchasing the software for Mutual Fund Anyware and Mutual Fund Web content from the OP by paying Rs.1,55,000/- on 15.03.2007. OP promise to install the said software purchased by the complainant immediately but failed to install. After 40 to 45 days it was installed, unfortunately it was not working satisfactorily. Then OP promise to supply the new version, but could not keep up its promise. Complainant made to approach R & D and RM to solve his grievances. The said officials accepted the failure, with regard to the said software but still they did not compensate. <br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non appearance of the OP even after the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable reap the fruits of his investment. He suffered a loss and good will in his business. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. OP is aware of the defect in the said software neither he rectified the same nor refunded the said amount. By retaining the said amount, without extending the service OP accrued the wrong full gain, thereby caused wrong full loss to the complainant that too at no fault of his. The complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, he is entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,55,000/- with 12% interest p.a. from 13.03.2007 till realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 03rd day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> s.n.m. <br />