DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No. : CC/112/2018 

Date of Institution : 05.09.2018

Date of Decision : 09.09.2019

Mehtab Computer Society, K.C. Road, Barnala, Punjab through its Authorized Sh. Satish Bansal resident of Barnala Tehsil and District Barnala. 

...Complainant

Versus

1. Social Development Club, 1498 SDC, # 243, Naharpur, Sector 07, Rohini- New Delhi Pin-110085 through its Authorized Signatory/General Secretary.

2. Mr. Vishwendra N. Thakur, General Secretary, Social Development Club, 1498, SDC, # 243, Naharpur, Sector 07, Rohini-New Delhi Pin-110085. 

...Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Present: Sh. Lokeshwar Sewak counsel for complainant.

Sh. Rajan Chaudhary counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

3. Smt. Manisha : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Mehtab Computer Society, through its Authorized Signatory Satish Bansal has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short Act) against Social Development Club, New Delhi and another. (in short opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is running a computer centre and provided the computer education under various schemes of the State Government as well as Centre Government for livelihood. In the year of 2015 the opposite party No. 2 and his associated personality Mr. Sanjay Jha introduced themselves members of WASME (World Association For Small and Medium Enterprises) which provide and guide for the Government skill India development projects for the students and they arranged meeting at Delhi and complainant also joined the said meeting.

3. It is further alleged that thereafter they made a separate personal club i.e. Social Development Club and opposite party No. 2 has introduced himself as the Secretary of the said club and offered the complainant to be the Member of the said club and provide the skill development projects to the complainant on commission basis. The complainant after paying Rs. 10,000/- also become the Member of the said club and opposite party also created a whatsapp group in which the complainant was also a member. 

3. It is further alleged that in the month of August 2016 the opposite party No. 2 demanded to deposit an amount to the account of opposite party No. 1 to provide the complainant the skill development project for three hundred beneficiaries under MANAS (Maulana Azad National Azademy For Skills) project and complainant deposited Rs. 2,25,000/- on 15.2.2016 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 7.6.2016 in the Account No. 6384243250 at the Branch of Indian Bank, Sector-5-, Noida of the opposite party, for the project. The opposite party had agreed to provide services after receiving Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. But the opposite parties have not provided any project to the complainant and not returned the amount of the complainant even after repeated requests and mails which was deposited by the complainant for the project and even not picked up the phone of the complainant. After that when complainant demanded his amount on whatsapp, the opposite party became arrogant the flatly refused to return the amount of the complainant, which is deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties be directed to return the amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum.   

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment.           

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief this Forum deems fit. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written reply taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that complainant is carrying on his business at large scale that constituted commercial purpose so he does not fall within the ambit of Consumer under Consumer Protection Act. Further, the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. Further, the opposite party has no branch office at Barnala so this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. 

5. On merits, the opposite parties submitted that the complainant society is carrying on business at a large scale and not for livelihood and large number of employees have been employed to run his business. Further, he is running an educational institution. Further, the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties because being Member of the club the complainant is part of society. Further, it is the complainant who could not manage requisite number of students/candidates. Further, to decide the present complaint needs voluminous evidence which is not possible in summary procedure. The whole dealing is professional and dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute. It is further submitted that the amount demanded by the complainant is not refundable and it is the complainant who lost interest in the project due to lack of students/candidates so he is not entitled to any refund. The present dispute relates to Profession Activities so this type of activity is not covered under the Act. Further, the complainant has no jurisdiction as just sending/depositing money from Barnala does not confer territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and no cause of action arose at Barnala. 

6. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that during its dissemination services SDC updated its all member organizations about the project of Maulana Azad National Academy for Skills-MANAS (MoMA) and complainant approached SDC to provide complete assistance and support to get this project. As per agreed terms there are two phases of this project i.e. to get empanelled Mehtab Computer Society as Project Implementing Agency with MANAS and to provide Assistance and Support to get a minimum training target of 300 beneficiaries and for the first phase a fee of Rs. 2.25 lacs and for second phase a fee of Rs. 2 lacs were agreed. The opposite parties never claimed that they will provide training to target of 300 beneficiaries as it Ministry's Project and not in the ownership of any individual or firm/ organization. In the year 2016 Mehtab Computer Society got Certificate of empanelment as Project Implementing Agency with MANAS and this way first phase of service from the side of the opposite parties done. But due to some unknown reasons MANAS postponed this project and did not allocated any project to any project implementing Agency for MANAS in various states which is not a fault from the part of the opposite parties. Further, at the same time project got opened in some of the states and opposite parties offered the complainant their assistance for those states but he did not reply. It is further submitted that at various stages of project follow up the complainant did not perform his duty in spite of mails and communication from the side of the opposite parties. The complainant also has not taken any step to settle the grievance. The opposite parties refused to extend further assistance because the complainant blamed and harassed them. Lastly, they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own duly sworn affidavit as Ex.C-1, copy of entry dated 11.2.2016 and 28.3.2016 as Ex.C-2, copy of whatsapp message as Ex.C-3, copy of email as Ex.C-4, legal notice as Ex.C-5, postal receipt as Ex.C-6. 

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties  tendered into evidence copy of offer email dated 4.2.2016 as Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of email issued dated 2.9.2016 as Ex.OP-1.2/2, copy of project opening and option provided email dated 6.7.2016 as Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy of proof of assistance emails are Ex.OP-1.2/4 to Ex.OP-1.2/9, copy of proof of assistance for NITI as Ex.OP-1.2/10, copy of proof of assistance for NIESBUD as Ex.OP-1.2/11, copy of proof of assistance for STEP Programme as Ex.OP-1.2/12, copy of DDU-GKY application as Ex.OP-1.2/13, copy of email dated 15.10.2016 as Ex.OP-1.2/14, copy of photos taken from the website of complainant depicting scale of activities of the complainant as Ex.OP-1.2/15 to Ex.OP-1.2/32, Ex.OP-1.2/33 and closed the evidence.   

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed by the parties have also been gone through. 

10. Before going into the merits of the present complaint firstly we deal with the main objection of the opposite parties that complainant is carrying on his business at large scale which constituted commercial purpose so he is not a consumer as he employed a large number of employees in his centre.

11. To prove that the complainant is running his business for commercial purpose on a large scale and employed so many employees in his centre the opposite parties placed on the file copies of photos taken from the website of the complainant Ex.OP-1.2/15 to Ex.OP-1.2/32. From Ex.OP-1.2/15 to Ex.OP-1.2/18, Ex.OP-1.2/20, Ex.OP-1.2/21, Ex.OP-1.2/24, Ex.OP-1.2/25, Ex.OP-1.2/27, Ex.OP-1.2/28  it is proved on the file that there are many students taking computer education and other works training from Mehtab Computers. From Ex.OP-1.2/19, Ex.OP-1.2/22, Ex.OP-1.2/26 it is proved on the file that there are many employees working in Mehtab Computers. From Ex.OP-1.2/29 to Ex.OP-1.2/32 it is proved on the file that the business of the complainant is very high level and they gave training to 600 students in the year 2006 and also gave Hardware and Software training to 945 students in the same year. It is also mentioned in Ex.OP-1.2/29 that the complainant centre also gave training to Judicial Staff, Water and Sanitary Department, District Education Office, Block Development Office, DC Office etc. it is also mentioned in this document that complainant centre gave training to 800 students in the year 2008 and 1200 students in 2011 besides 250 students of Jammu and Kashmir. 

12. From all these documents it is proved on the file that complainant is doing the business for commercial purpose with the help of number of employees and had taken projects of lacs of rupees from the Government and other big companies. So, in our view the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as he is running his computer centre for commercial purpose and present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. 

13. The Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Nilabh Jain and another Versus Emaar MGF Land Limited and others reported in III (2018) CPJ-378 (NC) held as under.-

“ Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1) (d), 21 (a) (ii)-Consumer-Allotment of commercial space-Bank sanctioned loan- Construction work stopped-Commercial purpose-Alleged deficiency in service- Allotment of units has been made in commercial complex and prima facie this only indicates that whole complex will be used for commercial purpose-Complainants are already engaged in business of preparation and sale of school uniforms on a large scales and it seems that they have booked these units for expansion of their business-Even loan has been sanctioned as a commercial loan-This seems to be for expansion of business-All evidence available on record goes on to show that units have been purchased for expanding business which implies commercial purpose-Complainants not consumer.”

This citation is fully applicable to the present complaint as in the present case also the complainant wants the project to expand his business which is already on very large scale as proved by the evidence on the record so in the present matter also the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) read with Section 21 (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. 

14. In view of our above discussion, as the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, so the present complaint is dismissed being not maintainable. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court or any other remedy for the redressal of his grievance if he desires so and the time spent in disposing of the present complaint will not be considered for the purpose of limitation. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

  9th Day of September 2019

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

 

 

              (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member

 

(Manisha)

Member