SUNDLASS CONSULTANTS Vs. AMS INFORMATICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant against order, dated 5.3.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 1047 of 2008 vide which, it dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs. 5,000/ - filed by Sundlass Consultants, complainant and directed the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 9,000/ - to the OP.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are, that the complainant in the month of February, 2008, approached the OP, who deals in the business of providing net/web support in the form of Domain Name and Website. It was stated that the complainant made a total payment of Rs. 13,180/ - by way of two cheques for an amount of Rs. 2,000/ - and Rs. 5,000/ - and cash to the tune of Rs. 6180/ -. It was further stated that the OP assured the complainant that it would upload all information in regard to its company on the web and even upload the same in various search engines like Yahoo, Google etc and the complete web support was also to be supplied it (OP). It was further stated that subsequently in the month of April, 2008, the complainant got the shock, when he visited the website, as developed by the OP, as it found that the information supplied on its website was simply copied from another website and this led to the 'commission' of a serious offence under the Copyright Act and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complainant contacted the OP and even told about various shortcomings, on the website, upon which, the OP had assured that these facilities would be made available over the website, but it did nothing. It was further stated that the website as desired by the complainant was never ever developed by the OP but rather through theft and illegal means, they procured information from the internet, copied it and pasted it to create an incomplete website, for the complainant. The complainant sent an e -mail to the OP on 1.5.2008, but the same failed to evoke any positive response, from it (OP). It was next averred that the complainant was to serve as a gateway of intensive inter -action, with the visitors and its prospective customers. The complainant had, put in its hard earned money to develop this website. The complainant had asked for refund of the complete amount from the OP but it refused to do so. The complainant was forced to avail of the services of another Company for uploading the information over the internet, in relation to its company and in the process incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,800/ - approximately. The above said act of OP amounted to deficiency, in service and hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) REPLY was filed by the OP wherein it admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was pleaded that the complainant approached the learned District Forum with unclean hands by not disclosing the material facts. It was next pleaded that a total sum of Rs. 32,000/ - was settled, out of which, the OP received Rs. 13,000/ - and the balance amount of Rs. 9,000/ - was due from the complainant as it did not opt to have the Login Software. It was further pleaded that no paid or search engine optimization was offered by the OP, to the complainant, and only designing the site, hosting and web support was the part of the contract. It was stated that the OP had sent an invoice dated 23.4.2008 for Rs. 26,000/ - in which it was stated that the complainant shall owe the deliverables after final payment, but as the complainant was having old relations with the OP, hence it ignored this condition and forwarded the hosting user name and password to it on 30.4.2008, through e -mail and trusted that it would make the payment, which it never made. It was denied by the OP that the website of the complainant was copied from any other website. It was further stated that in fact, it was fully developed and prepared by the OP on the instructions of the complainant, sent by it through e -mails by way of attachments on different dates. All other allegations levelled by the complainant in the complaint were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in service on its part.