SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OPs to pay Rs.96,289/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
The brief of the complaint :
The complainant is working as a GST practitioner in India. He is doing the work of different reputed companies and doing the work for his livelihood. The OPs had made a promise that the complainant will give the GST practitioner work of 4 reputed companies. Then the OPs had made an interview and they told the complainant that the complainant had paid Rs.33,094/- to OPs. On 6/8/2021 the complainant paid Rs.5635/- and Rs.6872/- to 2nd OP and on 8/8/2021 the complainant paid Rs.13,697.43 to 2nd OP. Moreover the assurance of OP the complainant had purchased a laptop for an amount of Rs.38,195/-. But the OPs are not given the work to complainant. Only on believing the words and assurance of OPs the complainant had purchased the new laptop. But the OPs fails to do the work to the complainant. The act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss . So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence the complaint.
After filing this complaint notice issued to both OPs. Both OPs received the notice and filed their written version before the commission. The OPs contended that the complainant is not a consumer and the service availed by the complainant are under a contract of personal service. Moreover the services activated and delivered by the company to such subscriber once activated and delivered cannot be returned back by the user and the designated amount not refunded. The complainant is claiming the amount of laptop costing Rs.38,195/- from the OPs who have never asked the complainant to purchase the said laptop. So the OPs are not liable for the purchase of the said laptop by the complainant. The complainant lost one year and he suffered a loss of Rs.25,000/- from the OPs are denied the job. So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the complaint may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked. On OP’s side no oral or documentary evidence.
Issue No.1:
The Complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. The complainant was examined as PW1 and OPs are not cross examined. He relied upon Exts.A1 to A6 documents. Ext.A1 is the GST practitioner certificate(regarding home based accounting). Ext.A2 is the certificate issued by Almis Academy. Ext.A3 is the payment receipt of 1st OP dtd 6/8/2021( 4 in Nos.) Ext.A4 is the print out of credit card statement of Axis bank. Ext.A5 is the invoice of HT Media limited and Ext.A6 is the tax invoice of lap top for an amount of Rs.38,195/-. The complainant had paid Rs.33094/- to OPs for the GST practitioner work of different reputed companies. But the OPs were not given the work to the complainant as promised. Then the complainant demanded to return the amount . But the OPs are not returned the amount to the complainant. The lap top is in his custody, and the complainant is used the laptop for his personal purpose. So that the amount is not entitled from the OP. Except the version the OPs have not produced any document or evidence before the commission to prove their defense. So the act of OPs, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence the issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2&3:
As discussed above ,the OPs are not ready to refund the amount of Rs.33,094/- to the complainant. The complainant had paid the amount only on believing the promise of the OPs that the OPs give the GST practitioner work of 4 reputed companies. But the OPs are not given the work to the complainant. So the OPs are directly bond to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.33,094/- to the complainant along with Rs.7000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.33,094/- to the complainant along with Rs.7000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost. within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.33,094/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. If the OPs failed to comply the order, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- GST practitioner certificate
A2- Certificate issued by Almis Acadamy
A3- payment receipt
A4-print out of credit card statement
A5- tax ionvoice
A6-cash bill
PW1- Avinash.T.V- complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
