V.S. Sirpurkar, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is filed against the judgment passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter called the National Commission" for short), allowing the First Appeal filed by the Respondent herein holding that the complaint filed by the Respondent herein was tenable relating to its grievance about the deficiency of service, under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short) as amended.
(3.) The Appellant had sent a detailed proposal for developing certain computer software for the Respondent at a cost of Rs. 36 lacs on 11.2.1998.This proposal was accepted by the Respondent who sent the letter of intent indicating its intention to entrust the Appellant with the development of the said software. On 1.4.1998, the Respondent sent a purchase order to the Appellant regarding the terms and conditions at which the Appellant was to develop the software for the Respondent. That software was to take care of (1) Financial Accounting, (2) Production, (3) Marketing, (4) Purchase, (5) Stores/Inventory, (6) Fixed Assets, and (7) Pay Roll and Personnel System. The Appellant wrote to the Respondent on 3.2.1999 informing that the Stores and Purchase Modules had been installed in the Respondents office on 1.2.1999. The Appellant wrote on 4.2.1999 to the Respondent that since the Respondents requirements for the Marketing Module had gone up considerably in comparison with what had been initially agreed between the parties, the Appellant would require additional 250 man hours to complete. On 26.2.1999, the Appellant informed the Respondent that three Modules had been successfully installed, they being, (1) Stores, (2) Purchase, and (3) Production. Again on 17.3.1999, the Appellant confirmed that even the Financial Accounting Module was also successfully installed. Further, the Appellant wrote to the Respondent that in view of the additional requirements of the Respondent, it would require 350 man hours more. On 30.3.1999, the Appellant informed the Respondent that the changes suggested by the Respondent had been successfully carried out. The Appellant informed the Respondent again that due to the addition of 48 new functions to the Marketing Module, the estimation for the Module had gone up by 45 man days, costing an additional Rs. 60,000. On 7.4.1999 and 13.4.1999, the Appellant informed that the Stores and Purchase Module and Financial Accounting and Marketing Modules were also installed respectively on those dates and sought for their feedback. Thereafter, there was a lot of correspondence between the parties as regards the work of the said software and in respect of the different Modules. It seems, at times, the Respondent/complainant expressed its satisfaction over the working of the Modules. All this happened in the last months of 1999 and in January, 2000. It seems that till February, 2000, the payment of the Appellant was not released requiring the Appellant to write to the Respondent for the same. The Respondent thereafter started complaining about the working of some Modules. In the month of September, 2000, the Respondent placed a fresh purchase order with the Appellant for enhancement of the Production Module, on which the Appellant requested the Respondent to clear the outstanding dues which were not cleared till then. The Appellant again wrote to the Respondent for payment in the month of April, 2001.;