State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Roop Kumar Bansal vs Abhishek Srivastav on 6 April, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 365 of 2016 Date of Institution: 26.04.2016 Date of Decision : 06.04.2017 Roop Kumar Bansal son of Shri Satish Kumar Bansal, Resident of House No.1084/7, Patiala Bank Colony, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Appellant-Complainant Versus 1. Abhishek Srivastav, Director, Jaitra Technology, RZ-1042, Street No.5/8, Sagarpur, near Shiv Mandir, Delhi-46. 2. Mukesh Gaur, Project Reporter, Jaitra Technology, RZ-1042, Street No.5/8, Sagarpur, near Shiv Mandir, Delhi-46. 2nd Address: Jaitra Technology, C-15, Milap Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. Respondents-Opposite Parties CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Shri K.B. Sidhu, Advocate for appellant. Respondents exparte. O R D E R NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated March 21st, 2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short 'the District Forum'), whereby the complaint was dismissed.
2. The respondents-opposite parties are engaged in the business of Web development, Domain Registration, Reselling Server/hosting and support services. Allured with the advertisement given by the opposite parties at web site www.friendsdatebook.com (a social networking website), the complainant obtained the services of the opposite parties in the month of October, 2011. After successful completion of the work contract order relating to www.friendsdatebook.com., other software related works and website projects which included www.smsjobwork.com (a Multi - level marketing website) marryheart.com (matrimonial website) video calling software to the integrate in www.friendsdatebook.com and Virtual Private Server, that is, VPS Hosting as per the requirement of the complainant was done. The grievance of the complainant is that he paid Rs.93,775/- to the opposite parties but the website of the complainant was not made functional. The complainant lodged F.I.R. No.172 dated 16th March, 2013 (Exhibit RW-4) under Section 420,406,506,120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, City Thanesar. However, during investigation, the allegations levelled by the complainant against the opposite parties were found false and the Police filed cancellation report (Exhibit RW-6). The complainant, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.
3. The opposite parties contested the complaint raising plea that the complainant was to pay the amount of Rs.29,000/- at the initial stage and the remaining amount was to be paid on completion of the work contract as per schedule tabulated as under:-
Sr.No. Invoice No. Invoice Date Invoice amount (Rs.) Initial payment (Rs.) Balance payment (Rs.)
1.
JT/Aug03/12-13 31.03.2013 20,000/-
10,000/-
10,000/-
2. JT/Sep13/12-13 31.03.2013 30,000/-
10,000/-
20,000/-
3. JT/mar07/12-13 31.03.2013 27,350/-
22,775/-
4575/-
4. JT/Nov09/12-13 31.03.2013 59,000/-
35,000/-
9,000/-
5. JT/Aug14/13-14 30.08.2013 50,000/-
10,000/-
40,000/-
Total:
83,575/-
4. The opposite parties completed the Work Contract Order related to www.smsjobwork.com.marryheart.com, video calling software and Virtual Private Server i.e. VPS Housing as per the requirement of the complainant. The complainant was asked to pay the balance amount but he failed to pay the same and therefore the remaining work was not completed. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5. Indisputably, the complainant was satisfied with the services of the opposite parties with respect to the web site www.friendsdatebook.com) and the same was functioning. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties for another web site designing, programming, developing and registration Domain's www.smsjobwork.com (a Multi - level marketing website) marryheart.com (matrimonial website) video calling software to the integrate in www.friendsdatebook.com and Virtual Private Server, that is, VPS Hosting. It is established on the record that the work of the second web site was done as per the requirement of the complainant but the complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs.85,000/- and for that reason the second website could not be made functional. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Announced:
06.04.2017 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL