Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
30th day of November 2022
CC 30/21 filed on 27/01/21
Complainant : Abhilash Pocknarambath, Abhinitha Vihar,
Puranattukara Post, Thrissur – 680 551.
(In Person)
Opposite Parties : 1) C.S. Sudheer, Director – Suvision Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
No.50, Vinay Arcade, Santhi Nagar, K.H. Road,
Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 037.
2) Thanu and Mr. Mohan, Sales Team,
Suvision Holdings Pvt. Ltd., No.50, Vinay Arcade,
Santhi Nagar, K.H. Road, Bengaluru,
Karnataka – 560 037.
3) Accounts Department, Suvision Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
No.50, Vinay Arcade, Santhi Nagar, K.H. Road,
Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 037.
(Ex-parte)
F I N A L O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
- The complaint in brief, as averred :
The complaint is filed under Section 35 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant who is statedly a financial adviser engaged in the sale of financial products, subscribed to the services of the opposite parties - financial industry service provider, namely Suvision Holding private Ltd., of which the 1st opposite party is the Director. The 2nd & the 3rd opposite parties are respectively its Sales Team and Accounts department. The complainant claims to have paid the opposite parties a sum of Rs.49,450/- through their mobile App namely “Lead Market” whereby the opposite parties assured him to provide quality customer leads which comprise details relating to customers who are ready to invest or to take loans. The complainant alleges that the leads the opposite parties furnished to him were not quality ones, as promised, and were of no use to him. The complainant alleges cheating on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant’s repeated requests for the refund of the money he paid, statedly elicited no result. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the money he paid them, apart from other reliefs of compensation.
2) NOTICE :
Though the opposite parties have duly acknowledged the receipt of the Commission’s notice, they failed to submit their written version in time, before the Commission. Accordingly, proceedings against the opposite parties were set ex-parte.
- Evidence :
The complainant produced documental evidence that had been marked Exts. A1 to A4,apart from affidavit.
4) Deliberation of evidence and facts of the case :
The Commission has very carefully examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. A1 is copy of the SBI card monthly statement No.D19032373714 dtd. 21/03/19, in respect of the complainant. Ext. A2 is print out of reviews available in Google relating to the opposite parties’ activities. Ext. A3 is print out of the email trail in respect of the communication between the complainant and the opposite parties. Ext. A4 is print out comprising details relating to “leads”.
5) Points of deliberation :
(i) Whether the act of the opposite parties is tantamount to unfair trade
practice or whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of
the opposite parties ?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the sum he paid ?
Also whether he is entitled to compensation from the opposite
parties ? If so, its quantum ?
(iv) Costs ?
6) Point No.(i)
The complainant appeared in person. It appears that the complainant’s activity does not relate to “large scale” business and hence cannot be considered a commercial activity. This fact is very lucidly elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its celebrated judgement dtd. 04/04/95 in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industrial Institute. The complainant is therefore a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Ext. P1 evidences his payment of Rs.34,450/- to the opposite parties. The complainant communicated to the opposite parties the unproductive nature of the “leads” they provided him. Ext. A3 email trail which evidences the same, culminates with the opposite parties’ reply dtd. 06/04/2020 by which the opposite parties agreed to re-credit the revoked 15,000 credit points back to the complainant’s “lead market”, as a service gesture which in turn will go to prove the genuineness of the complainant’s grievance. The opposite parties have thereby apparently admitted the unproductive nature of the “leads” they provided to the complainant. Obviously, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Providing such unproductive “leads”, unlike promised, is undoubtedly an act of unfair trade practice. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we find no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the complainant. We are of the considered conclusion that the opposite parties, in the instant case, have adopted an unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on their part.
7) Point No.(ii) & (iii) :
Ext. A1 evidences the complainant’s payment of Rs.35,450/- to the opposite parties. The complainant has hardly produced any evidence to substantiate the rest of the payment he claimed to have made to the opposite parties. Hence we are inclined to infer that he is entitled to refund of the sum of Rs.35,450/- only from the opposite parties.
The wrong doings of the opposite parties inflicted agony and hardship to the complainant. The opposite parties have necessarily to compensate the complainant. We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to receive from the opposite parties a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the compensation for the agony and hardship he underwent and a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to
- refund to the complainant the sum of Rs.35,450/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand four hundred and forty only) he paid them,
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation for the agony and hardship he underwent, and
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards costs,
all with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The opposite parties shall comply with the above direction within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 copy of the SBI card monthly statement No.D19032373714
dtd. 21/03/19, in respect of the complainant.
Ext. A2 print out of reviews available in Google relating to the opposite
parties’ activities.
Ext. A3 print out of the email trail in respect of the communication between the
complainant and the opposite parties.
Ext. A4 print out comprising details relating to “leads”.
Id/- Member
