By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:-
This Consumer Complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief:- The Opposite Party had installed a manufacturing software for Rs.8,000/- in A.K Group Agro Food Industries owned by the Complainant for dealing with the accounts. It was not able to be used by the Complainant due to Covid-19 pandemic period. Afterwards, when it was tried to open it for usage, it could not be opened as it was blocked. It was then informed to the Opposite Party Company. They informed that the software could be used only if the Complainant could pay another Rs.5,000/-. And it was also paid. But when it was started using, the required features were not seen in it. Again it was seen blocked. Then on intimating this fact to the Opposite Party, they demanded another Rs.3,000/- for modifying the software. That Rs.3,000/- was also paid. This amount was paid as the Opposite Party had told that the Complainant would get the required features. But it fetched no use or benefit to the Complainant’s Company. After blocking the software, the third time, they demanded additional amount of Rs.24,000/- more. The Complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.16,000/- in three installments and when the Opposite Party demanded more money, the Complainant did not use it further and requested to make refund of the amount. But they did not refund the amount and asked to give further amount. The Complainant’s Company sustained loss due to the frequent blocking of the software by the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint with prayers to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant.
3. Summons was served on the Opposite Party; they appeared and filed version and the contents of which are as follows:- The complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts. The Complainant has no locus standi to file the above complaint. As per the records maintained by this Opposite Party, no records are seen showing a business transaction with the Complainant. This Opposite Party had never entered into a business deal with the Complainant herein. This Opposite Party had entered into a business deal with the Complainant here. The Complainant’s relation with the AK Agro food industries should be subjected to strict proof. It is submitted that the Complainant had supplied the software to one Roshan. He represented himself as the parent of the AK Agro food industries. This respondent has not extorted any amount and has not taken any undue advantages from the said Roshan as alleged in the complaint. The said Roshan approached the Opposite Party to install two basic softwares. The details of price and models of the softwares available are given below:-
Models Price
Basic. 8,000/-
Standard. 12000/-
Pro 18,500/-
Manufacturing 24,000/-.
4. The said Roshan placed an order for two basic softwares and an amount of Rs.8,000/- was paid as an advance for each. Thereafter he informed the Opposite Party that only one basic software is required and as such the Opposite Party installed one basic software. The features of the basic software includes trading account, suppliers account, customer account, purchase return. sale return. But thereafter, the said Roshan informed the Opposite Party that in order to meet the further requirements more sophisticated software was necessary and hence manufacturing model was required. It’s price came at Rs.24,000/-. The Opposite Party installed the aforesaid software and only after installation, the said Roshan had paid up Rs.16,000/-. The Complainant had used the newly installed software uninterruptedly without any complaint for one year. The free service warranty was only available for one year, ceased. After that, when the Opposite Party attended for periodical service, his demand for service charges were turned down at the instance of the Opposite Party. The reason assigned for the same was that the Opposite Party was not eligible to collect the same. The customer had another option to pay the annual maintenance charges in order to get the services. The Complainant was not willing to pay the AMC. According to the accounts maintained by this Opposite Party, an amount of Rs.8,000/- is still outstanding towards the purchase of the software by the Complainant. The said amount is long overdue. This Opposite Party reiterates his contention that the Complainant here has never entered into a contract with the Opposite Party. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. Hence prayed to dismiss the above complaint and the Complainant may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensatory cost for filing such false and frivolous complaint against the Opposite Party. It is prayed accordingly.
5. The Complainant filed chief affidavit; Ext.A1 and A2 were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1. But though the Opposite Party appeared and filed version they did not adduced any evidence documentary or oral for substantiating his contentions inspite of several chances were given.
6. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, Commission raised the following points for deciding the case.
- Whether the complaint is legally maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019?
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the Opposite Party?
- Relief and Cost?
7. Point No.1:- The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a manufacturing software for keeping of accounts in “A. K. Group Agro Food Industries” owned by the Complainant but he could not use it in his company as the software did not match his requirements and as the software was blocked by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party also demanded more and more money on different occasions. Hence this complaint with prayers. The Complainant himself has stated in the complaint that the software was purchased for the purpose of use for keeping of accounts in A. K. Group Agro Food Industries owned by the Complainant. As per Section 2(7) (1)“any person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose shall not be considered as a consumer”. As the manufacturing software, in this present complaint, was purchased for use of keeping of accounts for his industrial organization owned by the Complainant, he is not a consumer as defined in section 2(7) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Moreover, he has not stated and proved that the industrial organization was conducted for earning is livelihood. So, this complaint is not legally maintainable before this Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, but is liable to be dismissed as Point No.1 is against the Complainant.
8. As Point No.1 is found against the Complainant Point No.2 and 3 have not relevance and hence not considered.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed but without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22nd day of November 2023.
Date of Filing:-11.09.2020.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Ulahannan. Business.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Quotation. Dt:04.08.2020.
A2(Series). Tax Invoices (2 Numbers).
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
