Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by org. opponent against the order passed in consumer complaint No.274/2003. Consumer complaint was partly allowed and the appellant herein was directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara to refund an amount of `6,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to each complainant and also directed to pay `1,500/- for mental harassment and `750/- towards costs.
2. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
Complainants-Shri Vikas Krishnaji Dongre and Shri Dasrath Parshuram Aundhkar, resident of Satara approached the opponent through its Agent and each of them paid `6,500/- on 03/04/2002. Opponent issued receipt for the same. Opponent informed the complainants that complainants were entitled to use 45 MB space for website and also will get some other valuable goods at the lesser costs than available in the market and if the Company’s target is completed, they would be taken for the foreign tour. The complainants got I.T. Mat Card from the opponent and then they approached the Authorised Agent of the opponent. But, he gave evasive reply. They wanted to use website and by using the website, they wanted to purchase some goods, but website was not made available to them. They then approached the opponent, but opponent did not give any reply. Hence, they sent notice through their Advocate on 23/07/2003 and demanded `6,500/- to each of the complainant. When same was not refunded they filed consumer complaint against the opponent claiming refund of `6,500/- each with amount of `2,000/- for mental harassment and `1,000/- each to both the complainants as costs.
3. Opponent filed written version and contested the matter. Opponent admitted in its written version that he had sold 45 MB space of the website to the complainants by charging `6,500/- each. He asserted that he has given services to the complainants and he had also given some gift article like Digital Dairy, 20 hours Computer Training Privilege Card, Accidental Insurance of `1 Lakh, etc. However, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found that there was no proof about making website available to the complainants or giving Computer Training Privilege Card and insurance policy as per the advertisement or as per the contract. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also found that the complainants were not given training as to how the website should be developed. The complimentary articles were also not provided. Opponent had not conducted the Seminar and therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found that there was deficiency in service on the part of opponent in not giving 45 MB website and other assured services and therefore, complaint was allowed and opponent was directed to refund to each of the complainant `6,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and also awarded `1,500/- as compensation for mental harassment and `750/- as costs. Aggrieved by this order, opponent has filed this appeal.
4. This appeal was pending since 2004 and it was not prosecuted further by the appellant/opponent. On 03/08/2011 the office has placed this matter before us for disposal and on that date, we found that since this was the matter taken out from the sine-die list and parties were absent, we had directed the office to issue notices to both the parties which were made returnable on 26/09/2011. Accordingly, notices were sent to both the parties, but they are absent today. Therefore, we perused the impugned judgement and pleadings of the parties and we are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is appearing to be just, proper and there is no need of any interference in this order by us exercising appellate jurisdiction. For not providing proper services, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowed the complaint holding that the appellant was guilty of deficiency in service and therefore, it had simply directed the appellant to refund each of the complainant `6,500/- besides awarding some compensation for mental harassment and costs. Said order is appearing to be proper and there seems to be no merit in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 26th September 2011.
