IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of December, 2021
Filed on 20.03.2020
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholy.P.R.BA, LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.83/2020
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Sojimon 1. Sri. Abin Sebastain
Hi-Tech Solution Just dail Ltd. Kanti Arcade
Mullackal Ward Kottenkavu, Vennala Road
Chungam, Alappuzha New Udaya, Vennala.P.O
(Party in person) Kochi-682028
(Exparte)
2. Sri. Vineeth
Just dail Ltd. Kanti Arcade Kottenkavu, Vennala Road New Udaya, Vennala.P.O,
Kochi-682028
(Exparte)
3. Sri. Shiju Joseph
Just dail Ltd. Kanti Arcade Kottenkavu, Vennala Road New Udaya, Vennala.P.O,
Kochi-682028
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SRI. SHOLY.P.R (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1. Brief facts of complaint in short are as follows:-
Complainant is conducting business concern in the name and style High Tech Solutions. 1st opposite party approached the complainant and compelled to join their online platform for getting more business opportunity by assuring that whenever searching dealership of water purifier in online , the name and other details of the complainant’s company will come first. Accordingly the opposite party obtained Rs.11,316/- on behalf of just dial Ltd on 14/12/2019 as fees for 1 year. The opposite party also assured that the site will be open within 2 days. But it was not open even after 2 weeks of payment. The complainant called the 1st opposite party over phone, but no response. Thereafter the complainant called 2nd and 3rd opposite parties over phone on several times, further the opposite parties installed a site more or less benefited to the complainant especially the name and other details of the business concern was not shown in the site as described by the complainant. Though the said matter was informed to 1st opposite party then also he did not care. Thereafter 2nd and 3rd opposite party were agreed that the name of complainant institution will not come first in the site since the 1st opposite party has mislead the complainant in the said issue. Alleging deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, this complaint filed for realizing an amount of Rs.11,316/- from the opposite parties and Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony along with cost of the proceedings.
All the three opposite parties remained exparte. Complainant filed chief affidavit and 2 documents for evidence on his part.
2. Points raise for consideration are:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund the amount as sought for in the complaint?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.1 lakhs as compensation?
4. Reliefs and cost?
3. Point No. 1 to 3:-
Complainant’s case is that he had joined an online platform advertisement on instigation of opposite parties by paying Rs.11,316/- for a period of 1 year on 14/12/2019. He was conducting the business of water purifier in the name and style High Tech Solutions. The opposite parties were compelled to the complainant to join with their company for online advertisement for promoting his business. Complainant further alleged that the opposite parties made assurance that the name and other details of the complainant’s company will come first where anyone searched dealership of water purifier in online platform. But it was not performed as offered by the opposite parties in connection with the business of the complainant, even name of the business concern of the complainant was not mentioned in the site while the opposite parties installed the service after receiving complaints from the complainant. Subsequently the complainant realized that the name of the complainant’s institution will not come first in the particular site since the 1st opposite party has mislead him in the said issue. Hence this complaint.
Opposite parties 1 to 3 were remained exparte. Complainant had filed proof affidavit and got marked Ext.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice along with terms and conditions issued by authorized signatory of Justdial in which the 1st opposite party is the Relationship Manager of the said Justdial limited. Ext.A2 is the copy of cheque issued by the complainant in favour of Justdial for Rs.11,316/- dtd. 14/12/2019.
On perusal of available documents produced by the complainant it is understood that the complainant had paid Rs.11,316/- in favour of Justdial for availing services for advertisement regarding his products through online medium to connects general public. The unchallenged complaint as well as proof affidavit along with Ext.A1 and A2 would establish the case of the complainant and accordingly we constrained to hold the view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence these points are found in favour of the complainant and we limited compensation to Rs.5000/-
4. Point No.4:-
In the result, complaint stands allowed in part.
A) Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.11,316/- to the complainant.
B) Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
C) Complainant is entitled to Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings from the opposite parties 1 to 3.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 30th day of December, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Tax Invoice dtd. 3/1/2020
Ext.A2 - Copy of Cheque
Evidence of the opposite parties:- NIL
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
