BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

C.C.NO. 154/2017 Between:

Appa Mobile Technologies Private Limited, Rep. through its Managing Partner, Sri Aniestti Santosh Kumar, S/o.Apparao, D.No.2-22-1/25/17, Plot No.304, R/o.Sri Sai Arcade, Bagya Nagar Colony, K.P.H.B., Hyderabad. … Complainant And

1. M/s.Nistha Solutions, Rep. by its Founder C.E.O., Aswani Kumar T., Door no.6, 3^rd Floor, Arunachala Towers, Opposite Mayflower Sakthi Garden, Nanjundapuram Road, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-641 036.

2. Aswani Kumar T, Managing Director, Nistha Solutions, Door no.6,3^rd Floor, Arunachala Towers, Opposite Mayflower Sakthi Garden, Nanjundapuram Road, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore-641 036.

3. Nandini Vaidyanathan, W/o. D/o.not known, Aged about 52 Years, Occ:Business, H.No.9-150, Plot no.150, P.R.Nagar, Yerragadda, Hyderabad. …. Opposite parties.

Counsel for the Complainant : M/s.V.Sreenivasa Rao Counsel for the Opposite Parties: M/s.A.Ushi Reddy QUORUM: Hon’ble Sri K.Ranga Rao, Member-(J), &

Hon’ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member (N-J). TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR.

Order : (Hon’ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member (N-J))

***

01). This is a complaint filed by the Complainant u/s. 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 on 5.8.2017 against the opposite parties to direct opposite parties 1 & 2 as follows:

i. To refund Rs.20,20,344/- paid by the complainant towards the consideration for development of the application along with interest @ 18% per annum from the respective dates of payment till the date of realization;

ii. to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, unfair trade practice for mental agony and harassment and loss of business suffered by the complainant; and iii. to award costs of the complaint.

02). Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant is a partnership firm represented by its partners Anisetti Santosh Kumar and his mother Mrs.Bramaramba Anisetti and the firm is dealing in Android applications, chat applications, local business registration and other activities. Except the above avocation, the complainant has no other means or source of livelihood. The opposite party nos. 1 & 2 are dealing in software business through its mentor opposite party no. 3, who approached the complainant in the month of December, 2014 and agreed to render service of Android applications. Lured by the claims made by the opposite parties the complainant approached the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 for development of Android mobile apps and for installation as per the specifications mentioned below:

1. Chat platform

2. One directional chat

3. Poll creation

4. Celebrity management 5. Business management

6. Social network-Invite contacts

7. Freemium model integration

8. Payment gateway integration

9. Device testing and regression testing and

10. Deployment.

For providing the above said, services the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have sent an estimation through the email dated 28th December 2014. Being satisfied with the said estimate, the complainant had agreed to enter into an agreement of mutual non-

disclosure with the opposite party and the same was entered on 1st March 2015. As per the said agreement it was agreed that the parties shall disclose the information for a period of one year from the date of agreement and would maintain confidentiality for a period of five years from the date of agreement and the opposite party further agreed to complete the work of Android mobile applications within one year from the date of agreement. Believing the claims made by the opposite parties, the complainant had made a payment of rupees 17,30,344/- to the opposite parties by way of NIFT to the account bearing number 30989490097 of State Bank of India. Besides the said payment, the complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- towards server cost to the opposite parties. Thus a total sum of 20,20,344/- was paid to the opposite party nos. 1 and 2; that the complainant had also paid a sum