DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 418 of 10.10.2019

                                      Decided on: 1.4.2024

Paramjit Singh son of Sher Singh resident of Kakra Road, Ward No.2, Bhawanigarh District Sangrur, office at Tehsil Road, Model Town, Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

M/s Sunita Network Pvt. Ltd.,C-99 Ist Floor Sector 2, Noida U.P. through its Manager/Partner/Director/MD

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Ms.Gagandeep Gosal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.Sandeep Jindal, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite party ex-parte.                                              

 ORDER

                                      GAGANDEEP GOSAL,PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Paramjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s Sunita Network Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that the OP approached the complainant telephonically from its mobile No.75034 65557 that it is doing the work of Data entry. The OP instigated the complainant to join it with the assurance to give sufficient salary or profit margin. The OP further asked the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.35000/-with the assurance that the benefit shall be paid to him. An agreement has also been entered into between the complainant and OP on 28.9.2018. One cheque No.000456 of Rs.35000/- of ICICI Bank Branch was also issued for security purpose.
3. It is averred that work of data entry with the OP was started by the complainant. Initially dealing of the OP was O.K. but after some time dealing of the OP was not satisfactory. That the complainant by giving notice telephonically to the OP closed the said work with the OP. That thereafter dealing of the OP was smooth. They gave new plan to the complainant under which the complainant was to install 10 computers and Rs.32000/- per computer was to be paid by the OP, totaling Rs.3,20,000/- per month. The OP compelled the complainant to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- as security .Another agreement with the OP took place on 12.11.2018 through Tridev M.D. of the company. OP also issued cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- of ICICI vide account No.135405001843 mentioning therein for security purpose only. On 17.1.2019terms and conditions were also supplied by the OP. It is averred that the OP failed to give margin money or salary of Rs.32000/- per computer, per month. Complainant also sent legal notice dated 17.9.2019 but of no avail. That complainant made repeated requests and came to know that the OP has played fraud with him which caused mental agony and harassment to him. On this back ground of the facts complainant has filed the instant complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP pay the loss suffered by the complainant.
4. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OP but the OP refused to accept the same and was thus proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.12.2019.
5. In support of the complaint, ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents, Ex.C1 copy of cheque, Ex.C2 copy of agreement dated 28.9.2018, Ex.C3 copy of agreement dated 12.11.2018, Ex.C4 copy of cheque No.000460,Ex.C5 copy of service level agreement dated 17.1.2019,Ex.C6 copy of legal notice dated 17.9.2019,Ex.C7 postal receipt and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. The complainant has submitted that he was offered to carry out the work of data entry lieu of sufficient salary or profit margin. The complainant was also asked to deposit an amount of Rs.35000/- in lieu of the said work for which a cheque No.000456 of ICICI Bank, Jhandewala Extension, New Delhi,Ex.C1 was issued. The cheque so issued by the OP was marked as “for security purposes only”. Written agreement dated 28.9.2018 was then signed between the complainant and the OP        , which is Ex.C2. A reading of the agreement reveals that the agreement was signed as a business agreement and operational understanding between the parties and shall remain in effect for a period of eleven months from the date of execution thereof or from the date of providing the first data whichever is later and can be extended for the period as mutually agreed upon, for the purpose.
8. In para 2 of the pleadings, the complainant has then alleged that initially dealing of the OP was satisfactory. However, the same became sour after some time. The complainant has alleged that as the relations between them have severed the said work was stopped and a telephonic notice was then issued to the OP. A bare perusal of the above said agreement indicates that it was signed between the parties as a business agreement and work was stopped by the complainant after some time. However, neither time frame for the cancellation of the agreement has been specified by the complainant nor the fate of Rs.35000/- so deposited by him with the OP has been disclosed.
9. Complainant has further alleged that then in another agreement, Ex.C3 dated 12.11.2018 i.e. within 45 days from the date of signing of the earlier agreement between the complainant and the OP titled as ‘Service Level Agreement For Campaign Approval’, wherein the complainant was offered a fixed pay out of Rs.28000/- per month per agent for utilization of Exclusive & Exquisite offers on achieving quality targets/parameters. The contractor i.e. the complainant was to make upfront payment of Rs.5,00,000/- for which a cheque No.000460 of Rs.5,00,000/- was issued by the consultant i.e. OP as security for the same. The main job profile involved was “Need to make whatsapp or can use other means (like e-mail, social media, SEO CPL etc.) to make free & prime/premium distribution & disperse of Exclusive & Exquisite (E&E) offers for the members”.
10. This agreement was further revised with the service level agreement for Campaign Approval dated 17.1.2019 which is Ex.C5, wherein the monthly pay out per agent for utilization of offers/promotions on achieving quality targets was revised to Rs.32000/-. The acknowledgment of Rs.5,00,000/- having been paid by the complainant to the OP has been issued by the OPs vide receipt dated 12.11.2018 which is Ex.C5.
11. However, the complainant has alleged that promise of payment of monthly pay out per agent to the tune of Rs.32000/- was not honoured by the OP inspite of repeated reminders. The cheques so issued by the OP were issued with the wordings “For security Purposes only” due to which these cheques could not be presented in the bank for encashment. The complainant has alleged that a fraud has been committed with him by the OP and has prayed to make good the loss so suffered by him alongwith compensation.
12. A bare study of the pleadings reveals that all the agreements placed on record by the complainant i.e. Exs.C3 and C5 have been made for a mandatory pay out against per agent for utilization of offers/promotions on achieving quality targets as specified in the agreement for which the complainant had to shell out an amount of Rs.5lacs for which a cheque with the remarks “for security purposes” was issued by the OP. These agreements have been signed as business agreements and complainant himself has stated a fraud has been committed by the OP.
13. As per Section 7 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 which reads as under:

(7) “Consumer “ means any person who-

“Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”

14. A bare reading of above said section clearly indicates that the complainant has neither got any goods nor availed the services of the OP but has entered into a business agreement in lieu of monthly payments/salary/profit for the works on utilization of offers/promotions on achieving quality targets as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Even the complainant has no where stated that he had fulfilled the terms and conditions of the agreement and had achieved sufficient targets as stated in the agreement. As such in our opinion the complainant does not fall under the category of Consumer as per the provisions of Section 7 of Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore the complainant has himself alleged that fraud has been committed with him, for which this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint and for the same the complainant has other legal remedies i.e. to go to the police or to file a civil suit against the OP.
15. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                       Gagandeep Gosal

                                              Member                          President