Kerala

Wayanad

CC/273/2013

Paul.T.J,S/O Joseph,Thattaparambil House,Proprietor,Ancien Wellness Centre,U.C Road, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Just dial,No.25,Agt. Business Park,3rd Floor,Civil Areodrom Post,Avinashi Road, - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CIVIL STATION ,KALPETTA
WAYANAD-673122
PHONE 04936-202755
 
Complaint Case No. CC/273/2013
 
1. Paul.T.J,S/O Joseph,Thattaparambil House,Proprietor,Ancien Wellness Centre,U.C Road,
Mananthavady
Wayanad
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager,Just dial,No.25,Agt. Business Park,3rd Floor,Civil Areodrom Post,Avinashi Road,
641014 PIN
Coimbatore
Tamilnadu
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- with 12% interest to the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

 

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant contacted the opposite party with intend to advertise his firm and the opposite party agreed to advertise the same through their internet site. For that purpose, the opposite party received Rs.15,000/- from the complainant on 20.09.2012. The payment was made at Mananthavady through the cheque drawn at South Indian Bank, Mananthavady. The matter given for advertisement was "wellness centre, Life style decease recovery, whole body scan, whole body checkup, recovery centre, health care treatment centre clinic". But instead of that, the opposite party given wrong advertisement. Open MRI Scan centre, Diabetic centres, Head CT, Spine MRI etc... Which was not intended and given by complainant. Because of the wrong advertisement, the complainant sustained huge loss and difficulties and the intended purpose was not served. Knowing the same on 10.01.2013 and on 20.03.2013 the complainant several times informed the opposite party to rectify the same. But opposite party were not ready to do the same. There is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party.

3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to opposite party and opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the opposite party contented that the complainant does not come under the definition of "consumer". The opposite party also contented that the opposite party has not given a wrong advertisement as stated in the complaint. So the complainant has not sustained any loss as stated in the complaint. The opposite party had uploaded the categories which is available in the Genio in connection with the categories specified on the contract form. The opposite party had provided proper services.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party?

2. Relief and Cost.

5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A6. Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and opposite party is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the contract cum Invoice. In Ext.A1 document, the matter of advertisement is specifically stated. The contention of the opposite party is that even if matter is stated in Ext.A1, it will be published as per Genio. The word "AS PER GENIO" is stated in Ext.A1. The opposite party produced the Genio. On perusal, the Forum found that as per the terms of Ext.A1, the opposite party had included all required services to the complainant in the advertisement. The opposite party had published the matter as per Genio which is agreed and signed by the complainant. Once Ext.A1 is signed by the complainant, the complainant cannot go against Ext.A1. Therefore, the Forum found that there is no merits in the case and thus there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. The point No.1 is found accordingly.

 

6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get cost and compensation.

 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No Order as to costs.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of March 2015.

Date of Filing:02.02.2013.

 

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 

APPENDIX.

 

Witness for the complainant:-

 

PW1. Paul. T. J. Complainant.

 

 

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

 

OPW1. David Mayor. Adn, IT Incharge.

 

 

Exhibits for the complainant:

 

A1. Contract cum Invoice. dt:10.09.2012.

 

A2(Series). Copy of Emails (10 Nos).

 

A3(Series). Quotations (2 Nos).

 

A4. Letter. dt:03.10.2013.

 

A5. Copy of Bank Pass Book.

 

A6(Series). Copy of Reply Mails(3 Nos).

 

 

Exhibits for the opposite party:-

 

B1. Authorized Letter. dt:20.01.2014.

 

 

 

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.