D.O.F:01/03/2021
D.O.O:10/06/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.55/2021
Dated this, the 10th day of June 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Chandran . B aged 59 years
Proprietor Sree Chithra Textiles Kanhangad
S/o (Late) Kannan, Velarath (House)
Kovval Palli, Kanhangad (P.O)
Hosdurg (Village), Hosdurg Taluk -671315 : Complainant
(Adv: K. Madhusoodhanan)
And
1. The General Manager
Intution Systems
Smart avenue 28. No 4-02
4th Floor, 80 feet RD
Indiranagar Bangalore
Karnataka Pin 560038
2. Anand A Sailhambi – Co
Founder – CEO – Intutions
Systems. Smart Avenue 28. No 4-02
4th Floor, 80 feet RD
Indiranagar Bangalore
Karnataka Pin 560038
3. Rohith Kumar
Sr: Software Developer at Intution Systems : Opposite Parties
Smart avenue 28. No 4-02
4th Floor, 80 feet RD
Indiranagar Bangalore
Karnataka Pin 560038
4. Vinayak Abhishek
Sales and Marketing Manager
Intution Systems
Smart avenue 28. No 4-02
4th Floor, 80 feet RD
Indiranagar Bangalore
Karnataka Pin 560038
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed on the ground of service deficiency on the part of the opposite party by issuing a wrong software for his textile shop.
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a billing software namely, IVEPOS of the opposite party on17-12-2020 by paying its price through google pay to the Phone No.9986688896 the account of the OP No.4 and the software was installed in the complainant’s computer through an application namely, IVEPOS retail download from google play store. There after the complainant sent data to the Opposite Parties and they uploaded the same to the software and made available. When it started to function, it was seen that the complainant could not use it for his purpose because of software issues . He further asked for some basic features, but the Opposite Parties could not make the changes required for the complainant. The net profit calculation was shown wrongly. It was required for the textile shop billing and not
available in the software. When it was intimated to the Opposite Parties it was told that the software installed was made for restaurant billing purpose and not for textile billing.
The Opposite Parties said that it was a mistake on their part and they would replace that software and install textile billing software soon. But the Opposite Parties did not replace the software as agreed in spite of several requests. Thereafter from January 2021on wards, the complainant demanded the refund of Rs.7,000/-,the price amount paid for the software but that was also not complied with. The complainant was in need of the billing software emergently for smooth functioning of his textile shop and so he purchased the software from the Opposite Parties. But the Opposite Parties negligently issued a wrong software and even though agreed to replace it with a correct software, they did not care to do that, due to which the complainant suffered great mental agony and hardships.
The act of opposite party is service deficiency and unfair trade practice due to which the Complainant suffered loss and hardships. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to return Rs.7,000/- the amount paid for the the software along with Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardships and costs.
The notice issued to the Opposite Parties returned as addressee left and as unclaimed. Therefore the name of the Opposite Parties were called absent and set exparte.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents
Ext. A 1 is marked .The Ext - A1 is the screen shot of the payment transaction dated 17/12/2020 as per which the complainant paid Rs.7000/-to the Opposite Party No.4 .
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following
issues are framed for consideration.
1 . Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite party ?
2 . If so, what is the relief ?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that he purchased a billing software namely, IVEPOS of the opposite party on17-12-2020 by paying its price Rs.7,000/-, through google pay to the OP No.4, but when installed the same in the complainant’s computer, it was not functioning .When intimated to the Opposite Parties, it was told that it was actually a software made for restaurant billing and not for textile billing. The Opposite Parties said that it was a mistake on their part and they would replace that software and install textile billing software soon. But the Opposite Parties did not replace the software as agreed, in spite of several requests. Thereafter from January 2021 on wards,the complainant demanded the refund of Rs.7,000/-,the price amount paid for the software but that was also not complied with. The complainant was in need of the billing software emergently for smooth functioning of his textile shop and so he purchased the software from the Opposite Parties. But the Opposite Parties negligently issued a wrong software and even though agreed to replace it with a correct software , they did not care to do that, due to which the complainant suffered great mental agony and hardships.
Therefore considering circumstances and available evidence in this case and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships.
Here the complainant’s case is that the Opposite Parties are to be directed to return Rs.7,000/- the amount paid for the software along with a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
This commission is of the view that all the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to return the amount of Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant. But as regard to the compensation, Rs.100000/- is a huge amount and for such a loss, there is no evidence. This commission hold that Rs. 5,000/- will be a reasonable compensation.
ln the result , the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only) to the complainant with 8% interest per annum from 01.03.2021, the date of complaint till payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only), towards the costs.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of the Judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Screen shot of the payment transaction
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
