DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 618/2009
Shri V.P. Singh
C/o Signet Services,
M.G. Road, Balka Chowk,
Aya Hagar, New Delhi-110030. ….Complainant
Versus
- The Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank, AF Station,
Arjangarh, New Delhi-110047.
- The Managing Director,
Just Dial Priavte Limited,
A-39/40, Sector-16, Noida-201301. ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 10.08.2009 Date of Order : 04.01.2019
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Kiran Kaushal
Briefly facts of the complaint are that:-
- The complainant, Sh. V.P. Singh after his retirement started a business to provide security and housekeeping services. The complainant while surfing on the net found the site of ‘JustDial.com’, herein after referred to as OP-2 where there is provision for free listing on the site. The complainant listed his company on the site and started getting calls from OP-2 whereby its representative informed the complainant that OP-2 could provide the leads regarding the prospective customers which will benefit the complainant’s business. It is stated that after lots of follow-up by OP-2 complainant signed a contract with OP-2. The representatives of OP-2 had promised the complainant that they will provide ready business instantly with lots of leads in the contract period. It was further promised by OP-2 that the complainant will be given WAP, telephonic membership, D2SIZE add in yellow pages, catalogue/ video on JD website and SMS on mobile (53999) during the contract period.
- The complainant entered into contract with OP-2 for one year. As per the contract the complainant had to pay Rs.25,000/- for one year contract. In this regard, the complainant had paid three installments in advance and rest of the fees was to be paid in nine equal installments through ECS. The complainant in this regard gave instructions to Syndicate Bank (OP-1). After completing all the formalities the complainant instructed OP-1 to pay Rs.2,298/- per month to OP-2. The document in support of the same is marked as Annexure P2.
- It is further averred that after making the payment and signing the contract complainant found the services of OP-2 to be deficient. The leads provided by OP-2 were bogus/ fabricated and sometimes even matured. It is alleged that the promise of OP-2 regarding the advertisements, WAP etc. were not fulfilled. The complainant wrote numerous mails to OP-2 requesting that his contact number should be provided to the prospective customers but even after several calls, mails and personal visits, OP-2 did not rectify the mistake and kept passing the non functional number instead of the mobile number of the complainant.
- Dissatisfied by services of OP-2 complainant wrote mails to terminate the contract. Repeated requests to OP-2 to either rectify its mistake or fulfill its promises or that OP-2 should terminate the contract all went in vain.
- It is next stated that being fed up with the attitude of OP-2 the complainant personally went to the office of OP-1 and requested them to stop the payments to OP-1 through ECS but to the surprise of the complainant OP-1 refused the stop the payment through the ECS.
- Aggrieved and unsatisfied with the reply and conduct of OPs complainant approached this forum with following prayers :-
- Direct the OP-1 to stop the payments to OP-2.
- Direct the OP-2 to refund the money paid by the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a.
- Direct the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs.250,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony, mental torture, harassment, financial loss etc.
- Direct the respondents to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant towards the litigation and miscellaneous expenses.
- OPs controverted the averments of the complainant by filing their written statements.
- Rejoinder to the written statements of OP-1 and OP-2 are filed by the complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant wherein facts of the complaint are reiterated.
- Evidence of Shri Liyakat Ali Regional Manager Admin in ‘Justdial’ has been filed on behalf OP-2. Evidence of Shri Shiv Charan, Senior Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank has been filed on behalf of OP-1.
- Written arguments have been filed by the parties.
- Arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP-2 have been heard. Despite providing opportunity to OP-1 none appeared on their behalf to advance oral arguments.
- Before going into the merits of the case, the preliminary objections raised by OP-1 and OP-2 is, that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant was availing the services of OP-2 only for the commercial purpose and with the aim to earn profit. Under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 person availing or hiring the service for commercial purpose, was excluded in the definition of the Consumer.
- The key question to be decided by the Forum is : ‘Whether the business of the complainant is on large scale and whether it was for earning his livelihood ?
- The complainant has taken a plea that after his retirement the complainant started business on small scale to provide security and housekeeping service to people. However, the complainant to expand his business activities approached OP-2 to provide ready business instantly with lots of leads. Further he signed the contract with OP-2 that the complainant will be given WAP, telephonic membership, D2size yellow pages and catalogue /video on JD website and on SMS on mobile 53999 during the contract period.
- This Forum is of the opinion, the advertising for one’s company on various mediums and modes is done for the expansion of business to earn profit and not for earning the livelihood. Complainant’s attempt to promote his venture by print media (yellow pages), tele calls, electronic media (WAP & Website) & mobile phone SMS is certainly for commercial purposes. This opinion is further affirmed by a mail written by the complainant to OP-2. For ready reference the mail is reproduced as under:-
“Signet Singh wrote:
Dear Sir/ Madam,
It is bought to your notice that Signet Services 24/7 has been established with an aim to provide services to corporate, residential and commercial purposes in the following categories:-
- Security Services
- Guard Services
- Housekeeping Services
Henceforth, I request that I may please be provided with leads in above categories only and .. the categories may be deleted with immediate effect and you are also requested to include A—keyboards with the following, related to above services.
Security Services
Housekeeping Services For Commercial
Security Services Commercial
Cleaning Services
Security Services For Residence
Security Services For Corporate
Hospitality Services
Cleaning Services For Floor
Security Services Domestic
Security Services For Industrial
Cleaning Services For Upholstery
Security Services Housekeeping
Security Services Guard Certified
Security Services Mnc.
Security Services School
Security Services Shop
Cleaning Services For Hospital
Further, Signet Services 24/7 is located at Delhi & Gurgaon Border. Hence, the priority wise and for business leads are as follow:-
- Gurgaon
- South Delhi
- Rest of Delhi
- Noida
LISTING OF OUR COMPANY ON YOUR WEBSITE
Till today neither the company has been listed on your website nor any draft for listing/up ads is received.
Kindly do the needful at the earliest.
Thanks & Regards
Dr. V.P. Singh
Director
Signet Services 24/7”
The quantum and variety of services offered by the complainant also indicate that he is working at a commercial scale and not for merely earning his livelihood.
11. Going through the above mail, it is established that the complainant hired or used the services of number of people to run his business. It is further noticed that the number of people employed have been kept vague by the complainant. From the above mail it is evident that the promotion of the business certainly does not seem to be that on small scale or specifically for earning the livelihood.
12. Thus, in our considered view, the complainant is not covered within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint is not maintainable on this ground alone. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 04.01.19.
