By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:

            This complaint is filed by K. J. Shaju, Advocate residing at Kallolickalputhanpura House, Sulthan Bathery amsom, Sulthan Bathery Taluk  against Jerome Edison, Proprietor, Square Computer Technologies (Square DTP Photostat) Under Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd, Sulthan Bathery amsom, Manikuni, Sulthan Bathery Taluk and another alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite Parties.

            2.  The case of the Complainant in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant is an Advocate and the 1^st Opposite Party is conducting a shop under the name Square Computer Technologies at Sulthan Bathery and 2^nd Opposite Party is working under the 1^st Opposite Party in the shop.  According to the Complainant the Opposite Parties are doing DTP and Photostat works for some years and the Complainant was used to engage Opposite Party No.2 for typing petitions etc in English and Malayalam and obtain its computer copies from the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant states that the 2^nd Opposite Party was receiving Rs.15/- per page for typing in English for computer print in legal size papers and photocopy charges for additional copies if any were charged Rs.1.50/- or Rs.2.00/- per page.  According to the Complainant he had used the service of 2^nd Opposite Party so many times and they were in friendly relationship also.  The Complainant states that about 2 years back the Complainant had to file an injunction suit in Munsiff Magistrate Court, Sulthan Bathery as his wife as the Plaintiff which is numbered as OS.90/2012 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Sulthan Bathery.  Along with the suit a temporary injunction petition and Commission application were also filed, which was submitted by Adv. P. C. Praveen, Sulthan Bathery.  Complainant states that he had drafted the plaint and entrusted the 2^nd Opposite Party on 08/03/2012 for typing in computer.  On 09/03/2012 the 2^nd Opposite Party gave him the draft and after corrections 2^nd Opposite Party had given another draft to check it up in which also correction were made by the Complainant.  The Complainant states that before returning the 2^nd corrected copy, he took a Photostat of the same from “Sreelakshmi Photostat” Sulthan Bathery which was situated near to the office of the Complainant and in the Photostat copy the Complainant made necessary changes to alter the same as an affidavit which was also handed over to the 2^nd Opposite Party.  The draft copy of the affidavit given by 2^nd Opposite Party was also corrected and returned to the 2^nd Opposite Party by the Complainant.  The Complainant states that the Complainant had made necessary changes in the photocopy of the affidavit so as to prepare affidavit and petition regarding the interim applications.  Accordingly, Emergent Petition, address memo, Index memo and its dockets were typed by 2^nd Opposite Party as stated by the Complainant.  On 12/03/2012 all the copies were entrusted to the Complainant by 2^nd Opposite Party.  When the Complainant enquired about the typing charges, 2^nd Opposite Party informed that the amount is Rs.1,370/- and the Complainant asked about the way of calculation of the amount and 2^nd Opposite Party informed that Rs.30/- each for 40 pages ie Rs.1,200/- and the remaining Rs.170/- for photocopy charges.  To the question about 40 pages the 2^nd Opposite Party answered that 27 pages of plaint, affidavit, petition etc and 13 pages dockets.  The Complainant states that the charges are very excessive and the numbers of dockets taken by him are only 8 and not 13 as stated by 2^nd Opposite Party and the same was complained to 2^nd Opposite Party but no reply given by him.  1^st Opposite Party was also took the same stand as that of 2^nd Opposite Party.  The Complainant states that he was not expecting such a huge amount towards typing charges and due to insufficiency of fund the Complainant contacted his friend Sri. C. H. Manoj Kumar for Rs.1,000/- and the Complainant paid Rs.1,400/- in his presence.  Then the Opposite Party returned Rs.100/- after taking Rs.1,300/- towards typing charges and no receipt was also given.  Even though the Complainant told the incident to Adv. K. J. Vijayakumar who used to do DTP works in the same shop and asked him to speak to the Opposite Parties which was also turned futile and hence the complaint alleging that the charges are highly excessive for the work and according to the Complainant the plaint contains only 8 pages and 1^st affidavit is the re-production of the plaint.  The other affidavits and the petitions are re-production of the main affidavit with different prayers in the petition.  Hence according to the Complainant typing work done by 2^nd Opposite Party cannot be calculated on the basis of normal page rate for 27 pages.  Only 8 dockets are typed.  The rate of more than Rs.15/- per page in English are not prevailing in Sulthan Bathery.  Hence the Complainant sent registered notice to the Opposite Parties intimating the deficiency of service for which 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties sent separate replies totally denying the averments in the notice.   Complainant states that 2^nd Opposite Party challenged the Complainant to withdraw the statements in his notice and submit unconditional apology within 7 days from the date of receipt of the reply notice otherwise he will proceed against the Complainant both in Civil and Criminal Courts for the defamation suffered by him.  According to the Complainant the reply of the Opposite Party added the gravity of insult suffered by the Complainant.  Since the Opposite Parties had not realized their fault and tried to settle the matter, the present complaint is filed claiming compensation for the loss sustained and mental agony caused to the Complainant.

            3.  Upon notice the Opposite Parties entered into appearance and filed their version contenting that the Complainant had never visited the Institution run by the 1^st Opposite Party or had not engaged any works with the 2^nd Opposite Party.  The Opposite Parties had not accepted any amount either on 08/03/2012 or on 12/03/2012 from the Complainant.  The 2^nd Opposite Party do not have educational background or knowledge to do the work as stated by the Complainant.  It is further stated that it is the duty of the Complainant to prove the rate of DTP charges prevailed during that time and “if the Complainant had entrusted and done any work with the Opposite Parties, the amount of Rs.1,300/- paid by the Complainant is too menial and a much more higher amount is required to be paid”.  More over the Complainant had not produced any bill and the opposite Parties had not given any bill to the Complainant.  It is the version of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant had not approached them for doing any work and the Opposite Parties had not done any work for the Complainant and therefore the Complainant cannot allege any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties.  Therefore the Opposite Parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant.

            4.  The Complainant produced Ext.A1 to A20(series) and Opposite Parties have not produced any documentary evidences.

            5.  Ext.A1 goes to show that the Complainant had caused a Lawyer Notice to the Opposite Parties on 24/03/2012.  Ext.A2 is the Postal Receipt to show that Ext.A1 notice is sent to 1^st Opposite Party.  Ext.A3 is the Postal Receipt to show that Ext.A1 notice is sent to 2^nd Opposite Party.  Ext.A4 is the Acknowledgment card dated 24/03/2012 to prove the service of notice to 1^st Opposite Party.  Ext.A5 is the Acknowledgment Card dated 24/03/2012 to prove the service of notice to 2^nd Opposite Party.  Ext.A6 is the Reply Notice dated 30/03/2012 issued by 1^st Opposite Party, Ext.A7 is the Reply Notice dated 30/03/2012 issued by 2^nd Opposite Party.  Ext.A8 is the draft plaint given by the Complainant to the 2^nd Opposite Party for typing.  Ext.A9 is the copy of plaint typed and given by the 2^nd Opposite Party.  Ext.A10 is the certified copy of Index Memo in O.S.90/2012.  Ext.A11 is the certified copy of address memo filed in O.S.90/2012, Ext.A12 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.90/2012.   Ext.A13 is the certified copy of affidavit filed in O.S.90/2012.  Ext.A14 is the certified copy of petition U/S 39 R1 CPC filed in O.S.90/2012,  Ext,A15 is the certified copy of the petition U/O 26 R9 CPC filed in O.S.90/2012, Ext.A16 is the certified copy of petition U/S 151 CPC filed in O.S.90/2012.  Ext.A17 is the DTP charges receipt issued from the Apple net, Sulthan Bathery for taking DTP of amended plaint and Ext.A18 is the certified copy of amended plaint filed in O.S.90/2012.  Ext.A19 series is the details obtained as per RI Act dated 20/05/2015 and Ext.A20 series is the details obtained as per RI Act dated 02/06/2014.

6.  The following are the points to be considered in this case to derive into the  inference of the fact.

1. Whether the Complainant had sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties?
2. If so, the quantum of compensation and cost for which the Complainant is entitled to get.

7.  The Commission upon going through the complaint, version and the evidences produced from either side, and on a careful examination of the entire history of the complaint comes to the following observations.

8.  The case of the Complainant is that he used to engage the opposite Parties for typing petitions etc in English and in Malayalam and obtain its computer copies. The 2^nd Opposite Party was receiving Rs.15/- per page for typing in English from the Complainant and giving him in legal size papers and photocopy charges for additional copies required at the rate of Rs.1.50/- to Rs.2/- per page.  So many times the Complainant had used the service of the Opposite Party and they were in friendly relationship.  While thus the Complainant drafted a plaint and entrusted it with 2^nd Opposite Party on 08/03/2012 for typing.  On 09.03.2012 the 2^nd Opposite Party gave the draft copy to the Complainant.  The Complainant made corrections and returned it for taking copies.  The Complainant also took copies of the affidavit and petitions and the Opposite Parties had charged Rs.1,370/- which according to the Complainant is exorbitant.  According to the Opposite Party no such work had been entrusted by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties.  In order to substantiate their argument it is their version that no bill is issued to the Complainant and the Complainant had not produced any document to prove that such a work had been entrusted with the Opposite Parties and the Complainant had paid the amount claimed by him in the complaint.  In this connection the Opposite Party had filed their version as if they were knowing very well that they had not issued a bill to the Complainant which is the main ground taken by them to defend their side.  But the Commission feels that an innocent consumer even if he is a professional, shall not be allowed for any sort of exploitation if all the other circumstantial evidences are standing in his favour regarding the alleged transaction and in its resultant deficiency of service if any sustained to him could not be established due to the non-production of a bill.  Here in the instant case, the Opposite Party do not have a case that the Complainant had any previous enmity or malice towards the Opposite Parties.  From this it can be seen that this is not a cooked up story by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties just for troubling them due to any previous rivalry.  OPW1 admitted in the box that “Øm]\¯nsâ t]cv kqNn¸n¡p¶Xpt]mse DTP, Photostat F¶nh sN¿p¶p­v”. According to the Complainant the Opposite Parties had exhibited a board infront of the shop in which it is very clearly stated that they are undertaking such works which are stated in the complaint.  It is also deposed by OPW1 during cross examination that “Typing work sN¿p¶nà F¶ Imcyw  board t\m¡nbm ImWnÃ.  DTP work   Job Typing work s]Spw”.  Reading from the lines in the version of Opposite Parties itself it can be seen that the amount so charged is too menial which do have an indication that they have charged the said amount as stated by the Complainant.  In para 3 of the version it is stated by the Opposite Party that “]cmXnbn ]dbpw {]Imcw ]Ww X¶Xnt\m ]Ww kzoIcn¨Xnt\m tPmen sN¿n¨Xnt\m bmsXmcp tcJbpanÃmsX ]co£WmÀ°w C{]Imcw Hcp tIÊv sImSp¯n«pffXpw, ]cmXn¡mc³ sN¿n¸n¨Xmbn ]dbp¶ Un.Sn.]n tPmenIÄ¡v A¶v D­mbncp¶p F¶hImis¸Sp¶ tdäpIÄ F´ns\ ASnØm\s¸Sp¯n FSp¯n«pffXmWv F¶v ]cmXn¡mc³ sXfnbnt¡­XpamWv.  ]cmXnbn ]dbpw {]Imcw Un.Sn.]n tPmenIÄ GsX¦nepw Øm]\¯n ]cmXn¡mc³ sN¿n¨n«p­v F¦n {]kvXpX tPmen¡v ]cmXn¡mc³ \ÂIn F¶p ]dbs¸Sp¶ 1,370/þI (Bbnc¯nap¶qän Fgp]Xp cq]) hfsc Ipdhpw bYmÀ°¯n BbXnt\¡mÄ IqSpX htc­XpamWv”.  In this there is an implied meaning that a much more amount was due which were not charged from the Complainant.  It is further emphasised in the deposition given by OPW1 in box that “]cmXn¡mcs\ Adnbnà F¶pw ]cmXn¡mc\v th­n bmsXmcp work Dw sNbvXn«nà F¶pw ]dªm icnbÔ which means the OPW1 is admitting that he had done the work for the Complainant which is against his own version.  OPW1 admitted in the box that “kvIzbÀ sSIvt\mfPn I¼yq«À Øm]\¯nsâ GI DSabmWv Rm³.  _t¯cn tImSXnbn \n¶pw 1 In. an. AIsebmWv Øm]\w \nbam\pkcWw ssek³kv FSp¯v \S¯nhcp¶ Øm]\amWv”.  OPW1 further deposed that “Rm³ B Øm]\¯n tPmen sN¿p¶p­v Fs¶ IqSmsX 1 BÄ am{Xta Poh\¡mcmbn«pffq”.  Ext.A19 series shows, on the basis of the complaint received regarding the receipt of higher rates for Photostat lamination and DTP, a meeting was conducted under the Taluk Supply Officer, Sulthan Bathery and the 5^th name shown in the minutes of the meeting is the 1^st Opposite Party in the case.  Ext.A20 series shows that the 1^st Opposite Party had license during 2010 to 2014 and he had not applied to renew license during 2014-15.

9.  From the above instances especially from the deposition given by OPW1 in box before the Commission it can be seen that the Complainant had entrusted the work of typing and DTP to the Opposite Parties who are doing job works for which the Opposite Party had not given bill or the Complainant had not obtained bill.  But only due to the reason that there is no bill given or obtained, the claim of the Complainant cannot be rejected.  Since as per Consumer Protection Act 2019 “consumer means any person who (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose” from which it is very clear that to become a consumer, there need not be any payment of money and to produce bill as stated by the Opposite Party.  The Act do not insists on obtaining a bill on all occasions of transactions.  Therefore the sole argument of Opposite Party that there is no bill alone cannot be taken into consideration for non-engagement of work as stated by the Complainant vice versa the Complainant established with all the other documents that what is stated in the complaint is true and therefore Point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant.  Since the Complainant had a case that he wants no relief against the 2^nd Opposite Party, he is exonerated from the liability.

10.  Since Point No.1 is proved the following Orders are issued.

1. The 1^st Opposite Party shall refund an amount of Rs.740/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Forty Only) to the Complainant which is taken in excess with interest @ 6% per annum from 08/03/2012 till the date of payment.
2. The 1^st Opposite Party shall be liable to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards compensation to the Complainant.
3. An amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) shall be paid by 1^st Opposite Party as costs to the Complainant.

Needless to say that the above said orders is to be complied with within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this Order, otherwise the amount ordered shall attract interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realisation, except for the costs awarded.

Hence the complaint is allowed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 7^th day of August 2024.

Date of Filing:-28.02.2014.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              K. J. Shaju.                                                    Advocate.

PW2.              Ramesh Kumar. C. G.                                DTP.

PW3.              C. H. Manoj Kumar.                                   Business.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Jerome Edison.                                           Business.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Notice.                                                                                   Dt:24.03.2012.

A2.                  Postal Receipt.

A3.                  Postal Receipt.

A4.                  Acknowledgment Card.  

A5.                  Acknowledgment Card.  

A6.                  Reply Notice.                                                                       Dt:30.03.2012.

A7.                  Reply Notice.                                                                       Dt:30.03.2012.

A8.                  Draft Plaint.

A9.                  Copy of plaint typed .

A10.               Certified copy of Index Memo in O.S.90/2012.

A11.               Certified copy address memo filed in O.S.90/2012.

A12.               Certified copy of plaint in O.S.90/2012.  

A13.               Certified copy of affidavit filed in O.S.90/2012.

A14.               Certified copy of petition u/s39 R1 CPC filed in O.S.90/2012.

A15.               Certified copy of the petition u/o 26 R9 CPC filed in O.S.90/2012.

A16.               Certified copy of petition u/s.151 CPC filed in O.S.90/2012.

A17.               DTP charges receipt.                                                         Dt:15.06.2019.

A18.               Certified copy of amended plaint filed in O.S.90/2012. 

A19(Series). Copy of details obtained as per RI Act (3 pages).                             

Dt:20.05.2015.

A20(Series). Copy of details obtained as per RI Act (2 pages).      Dt:02.06.2014.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.     

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-