Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/130/2022

ABACA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

STRIDUM VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

ISH PUNEET SINGH

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	130 of 2022
Date of Institution	03.10.2022
Date of Decision	17.11.2022

ABACA Systems Private Limited, Plot No.F-152, Industrial Area, Phase-8/B, Sector-74, Mohali, Punjab, through its Director Sh. Sunil Dhawan.

                                                               …..Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Stridum Ventures Private Limited, having its registered Office at House No.3138, Sector-22/D, Chandigarh, through its Director Mr. Nitin Singla.

                                                                   …..Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

               

Argued by:  Sh. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

Sh. Dhruv Mittal, Advocate for the Respondent.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 20.08.2021, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint, with the following directions to the Opposite Party: -

“From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice has been proved on the part of OP. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs.4,25,680/- to the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for resorting to unfair trade practice and causing loss to complainant, along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/-.”

 

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant manufactures window blinds with brand name ‘Wintree’ and the complainant company hired the services of Opposite Party for shifting entire accounting and inventory management of the business to Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software, which offers a set of tools that share a common process and data model, covering end-to-end operational processes, such as accounting, analytics, inventory management, customer relationship management, human resources management, thereby helping business better track information.  It was stated that the Opposite Party was to provide the said ERP Software by one month fully functional without any defects/errors and to upgrade the same as per requirement of the complainant company.  It was further stated that the complainant company made payment of Rs.1,62,840/- on 03.04.2020, Rs.75,000/- on 07.05.2020, Rs.87,840/- on 24.06.2020 and had finally paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.08.2020 and had further agreed with paying Rs.92,648/- vide a postdated cheque. It was further stated that despite of making regular payments to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party company failed to provide the effective & fully functional ERP Software to the complainant company as agreed.  It was further stated that complainant company also deputed two accounts officials with the Opposite Party officials to guide them in preparing the ERP Software, as per their advise, but the ERP Software provided by the Opposite Party was giving error, failed to work as per company requirements.  It was further stated that the bills being generated by the ERP Software was not as per the format and was creating a hurdle for GST filings, GST returns could not be filed, export invoices not available etc., sometimes says that the issues raised by the complainant company in ERP Software being beyond the scope of the work.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party company despite receipt of all the payments failed to render proper services by providing effective, trouble free ERP Software as per the requirement of complainant company as well as, as per the scope of work.  It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Party seeking their version of the case, but none appeared on behalf of Opposite 22.06.2021.
4. The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowed the complaint against Opposite Party, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Party.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the Parties and, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
9. It is observed from the record of the learned District Commission that the total payment of Rs.4,25,680/- was made by the respondent to the appellant company for hiring its services for shifting entire accounting and inventory management of the business to Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software,  which would help the respondent for better track information and despite of making regular payments to the appellant company, the appellant company failed to  provide the effective & fully functional ERP Software to the respondent as agreed. The appellant company never responded to the request of the respondent and failed in its duty to provide the services as committed by them. We feel that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant company and we are inclined to fall in line with the order of the learned District Commission and accordingly the said appeal stands dismissed.  
10.  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
11. Consequently, Miscellaneous Application No.748 of 2022 for condonation of delay of 347 days and Miscellaneous Application No.749 of 2022 for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 30.08.2022 passed in MA/49/2021 in CC/188/2021 and orders dated 22.06.2021 and 20.08.2021 also stands dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
12. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

17.11.2022

             

                                                                                                                                                                                       Sd/-

                           [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

[PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

GP