STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

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 servi