Haryana

Karnal

53/14

Sh.Vikash Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunil Kumar Gupta Director Weblink.In Pvt. ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. H.C. Arora

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.53 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt.28.2.2014

                                                               Date of decision:14.12.2015

 

Vikas Arora s/o Sh.H.C.Arora, proprietor Harisons Electrical Trading Co. Panipat with the branch office at 372 Old Housing Board Karnal resident of House No.327, Urban Estate, Sector -5, Karnal.

                                               ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

1.Sunil Kumar  Gupta, Director Weblink.in Pvt. Ltd. G-100 Pushkar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi – 110063, Delhi ,India.

2.Ankit Kumar Gupta, Director Weblink.in Pvt. Ltd. G-100, Pushkar  Enclave Paschim Vihar, New Delhi – 110063, Delhi, India.

3.Dheeraj Kumar Creative Head(Manager)Website Designing at Weblink India.net(Weblink.in Pvt. Ltd.).G-100 Pushkar Enclave, Paschim Vihar New Delhi – 110063, Delhi India.

4.Tiruchi (Manager- Legal Cell) Weblink.in Pvt. Ltd. G100 Pushkar Enclave,  Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, India.

                                                          ………..Opposite Parties.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………..Member.

                  

 

 Present        Complainant in person.

                   None for the OPs.

ORDER:                    

 

                        The brief facts giving rise to thepresent complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are that Opposite Parties( in short Ops)  No.1 to 3 uploaded their  very attractive profile about  their company on the internet.   Under the directions of OP no.1 and 2 Mr.Pankaj Parsad  of  Portal/Marketing  department of India Yellow Pages,  which is one of the  Portal of Weblink in Pvt. Ltd., contacted  the complainant through  internet for enhancement of the business of the complainant  with the latest technology for online promotion  on different  search engines like Google, Yadhoo, AOL etc. Mr.Pankaj Prasad offered proposal/agreement on 9.1.2013  with the subject online business  proposal from w.w.w.india yellowpages.com.  Offer was also given for gold membership  in the said proposal as mentioned in para no.6 of the complaint. Ops no.1 and 2 also submitted their main objective  is not just to design online  profile but to generate business in many ways.   Fee of Rs.19990/-   was demanded by the Ops  in lieu of their service for  gold membership which they agreed to provide for three years. Accordingly, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.19990/- on 29.1.2013 in HDFC Bank in favour of  Weblink. in. Pvt .Ltd. as per directions of the Ops. It has further been alleged that after receiving the fee OPs started ignoring calls of the complainant for promoting business of the company as  per their promise and not even a single feature was fulfilled  i.e. even the 35 keywords, which is the basic feature of promotion,  were  not activated on any of the search engines  in spite of their assurance for activating the keywords on 250 search engine.  The complainant  has been  complaining to the Ops for the last 12 months, but to no avail and his calls were ignored. Thus, the complainant could not contact any other Web company  for promoting business of his firm and suffered loss due to non promotion of his business during the period of one year by the Ops, which amounted to deficiency in services on their part, which caused mental harassment to the complainant apart from financial  loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. Written statement was sent by  post, but none appeared on their behalf despite service. In the written statement Ops controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable as it does not  disclose any cause of action;  that the complainant is not a  consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d) of the Act  as transaction between the parties  was for commercial nature; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint  as the courts at Delhi have only jurisdiction in the matter and that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of the parties i.e. Weblink. in. Pvt .Ltd.

 

                    On merits,  it has been submitted that complainant was contacted by one of the professionals so that he might be made aware about the different kind of benefits/services, add-on/discounted  features regarding all kinds of membership. The complainant had been dealing with the Ops since 30.8.2013 and opted for   gold membership and his site has been hosted on 23.4.2013. The complainant availed the services of the Ops for promoting his business activities though online services. The allegations made by the complainant are completely false and the complaint is abuse of the process of law. All the services which were committed were delivered to the complainant and there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  The website designer alone cannot play a drastic role in getting the business and it depends upon a number of factors. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13 have been tendered.

 

4.                 We have heard the complainant and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

5.                 As per the case of the complainant he hired services of the Ops to promote his business.  Offer/proposal on behalf of the OPs was given to him by Mr.Prasad representative of the Ops on 9.1.2013 and he accepted that offer and deposited Rs.19990/- on 29.1.2013 for services to be rendered by the Ops.

 

6.                 Before adverting to deal with the other aspects of the case, it would be appropriate to decide the question whether the complainant falls within the definition of the Consumer as provided u/s 2(1)(d)  of the Act.  According to the definition  consumer  means a person who buys  any goods or hires or avails of any services for consideration, but does not include the  person who obtains such goods for resale or for commercial purposes or who avails such services for any commercial purposes. The complainant himself has asserted that he hired services of the Ops for promotion of his business. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the fact that services of the Ops were hired by the complainant for business purposes i.e. for commercial purposes. Therefore, it cannot lbe said that complainant falls within the definition of the consumer. Accordingly, we hold that complainant is not established to be a consumer as per definition of the consumer u/s 2(1)(d)   of the Act, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.

 

7.                           In view of the finding that complainant is not consumer, ,there is no need to dwell upon other aspects of the case.

 

8.                          In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the present complaint is not maintainable and as such the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:14.12.2015                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present         Complainant in person.

                   None for the OPs.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 14.12.2015.

 

Announced
dated:02.12.2015                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member             Member.

 

 

Present         Complainant in person.

                   None for the OPs.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.           

 

 

Announced
dated:14.12.2015                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member             Member.