- (1.)Heard.
(2.)The District Forum appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 08.02018 allowed the complaint, inter alia holding that:
"9. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the concerted view that OPs are liable:-

i. To pay the penalty amount i.e. Rs. 1,04,240/- (42,840 + 61,400) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment by the complainant to the Income Tax Department.

ii. To pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and humiliation caused to the complainant;

iii. to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as the cost of litigation."

(para 9 of the Order)

(3.)The opposite party appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 10.04.2018 dismissed the appeal in limine, inter alia holding that:
" 7. This argument is devoid of any force. It is alleged by complainant that she availed the services of OP as per representation of Vigyan Arora. It is no where alleged that she did not avail the services of OP and did not make the payments to OP from time to time. So it is clear that there is relationship of consumer and service provider in between them. Complainant was Principal and was Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the school. She was in active correspondence with OP. In notice dated 24.10.2016 sent by her counsel it was alleged that complainant availed it's services, but, OP did not controvert those averments. Further appellant/OP has failed to prove that complete data was not supplied in time. No document has been produced to show that complainant was ever asked to supply complete data or informed that data was not complete. Mere averments cannot take place of evidence. It is opined by Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.) MS (Ortho) vs. S. Ramanujam, (2009) 7 SCC 130 and Hon'ble National Commission expressed in M/s JCB India Ltd Vs. M/s Chandan Traders & Ors. decided on 19.02.2015 that fact is to be specifically pleaded and proved, which OP has miserably failed to prove. So these arguments are of no avail. Learned District Forum has taken into consideration each and every aspect and rightly allowed the complaint. Appellant/OP cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because they are based on altogether different facts. In one case the dispute was with trust, in one case the agreement was with one person and third person filed a complaint without any authority and in one case aggrieved person did not come forward for the compensation.

8. As a sequel to above discussion, impugned order dated 08.02.2018 cannot be set aside. Resultantly appeal is hereby dismissed in limine."

(Para 7 & 8 of the Order)