DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/299 of 11.12.2015

                                      Decided on:        12.7.2016

Dr.Ravi Jindal son of Sh.C.D.Jindal Proprietor of M/s C.D.Jindal Memorial Umeed Test Tube Baby Centre, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

The Fastway Aerospaced Pvt.Ltd. SCO – 144 , 3^rd Floor, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.

                                                                   …………….Op

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member                                     

Present:

For the complainant:       Sh.Yogesh Khatri, Advocate

For Op:                             Ex-parte.                  

                                         ORDER

A.P.S.Rajput, PRESIDENT

1. Complainant Dr.Ravi Jindal S/o Sh.C.D.Jindal Prop. of M/s C.D.Jindal Memorial Umeed Test Tube Baby Centre, Patiala has brought this complaint against the opposite party ( for short the OP) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(for short the Act). The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. That the complainant being a qualified doctor is running  a centre under the name and style of Sh.C.D.Jindal Memorial Umeed Test Tube Baby Centre, at Patiala and for the sake of availing the services of the Op, the complainant approached the Op ‘The Fastway Aerospace Pvt.Ltd.’ for the advertisement of the centre, on his Fastway Channels in five Districits i.e. Patiala, Fatehgarh Sahib, Sangrur, Barnala and Mansa at the frequency of every 15 minutes for a period of one month starting from 1.12.2014, for which the Op received Rs.40,000/- from the complainant.
3. It is averred that inspite of repeated reminders to the Op, the advertisement was not properly advertised and it was advertised  in Patiala, Rajpura and Malerekotla cities from 1.12.2014 to 8.12.2014 and then from 16.12.2014 to 23.12.2014 only. It is averred that for the regular / proper advertisement on the channels, the complainant personally met the Op who gave the assurance that everything will be done in shortly. A legal notice dated 20.1.2015 was also got served upon the Op through counsel but to no effect. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Op. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the Op to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum;  Rs.50,000/- as mental agony and damages and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the Op  who failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
5. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit, Ex.C1 original payment receipt,Ex.C2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C3 original postal receipt and his counsel closed the evidence.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant stated that the main controversy involved in the present case is that complainant availed the services for advertisement of  M/s C.D.Jindal Memorial Umeed Test Tube Baby Centre, Patiala and paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- but the OP after receiving the said consideration amount did not telecast the advertisement as agreed upon between the parties. The ld. counsel pleaded that OP had assured the complainant, that if he chose the services of the OP, the complainant would certainly have a bright future as well as good response in the city.The ld. counsel also pleaded that it is proved from the material placed on record that OP had committed deficiency of service by not performing its part, as agreed between the parties.The ld. counsel has made a submission that the complainant deserves to be compensated for the act and conduct of the OP.
7. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the complainant and the oral arguments and written submissions, we are of the opinion, that it is well established from material placed on record, sworn affidavit of the complainant i.e Ex.C-A, original payment receipt of Rs.40,000/- i.e Ex.C-1 and legal notice i.e Ex.C-2 that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- in advance and the OP agreed to advertise,but OP failed to perform its part. In our opinion the OP acted negligently by not advertising as agreed.
8. Accordingly in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find OP had committed deficiency of service by not rendering the services as agreed upon between the parties, despite taking consideration for the same.Hence we direct the OP to render the services to the satisfaction of the complainant and in case complainant is not satisfied,then the OP shall refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- received from the complainant.
9. It may be stated here, that the complainant is a Limited Company, and, as such, a Corporate entity is not entitled to compensation for physical harassment/mental agony. Similar principle of law was laid down in Wipro Limited Vs.Toppers Multimedia (P) Limited & Ors. , II (2010) CPJ 39 (NC).
10. The OP is further directed to comply  with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.    The present complaint stands partly accepted.      

Pronounced

Dated: 12.7.2016

                             Neelam Gupta                        A.P.S.Rajput

                         Member                              President