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.
The appellant wrote on 4.2.1999 to the respondent that since the respondents requirements for the Marketing Module had gone up companysiderably in companyparison with what had been initially agreed between the parties, the appellant would require additional 250 man hours to companyplete.
Again on 17.3.1999, the appellant companyfirmed that even the Financial Accounting Module was also successfully installed.
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, companyting an additional Rs.60,000.
The appellant, by way of its reply to the companyplaint, raised a preliminary objection that the respondent companyplainant was number a companysumer within the meaning of the Act and also sought the decision on this preliminary objection as an issue.
Further, the appellant wrote to the respondent that in view of the additional requirements of the respondent, it would require 350 man hours more.
A rejoinder was sent to this reply.
Thereafter, there was a lot of companyrespondence between the parties as regards the work of the said software and in respect of the different Modules.
All this happened in the last months of 1999 and in January, 2000.
On 1.4.1998, the respondent sent a purchase order to the appellant regarding the terms and companyditions at which the appellant was to develop the software for the respondent.
The disputes started taking ugly shape and the respondent started companyplaining about the working of various Modules.
There was another legal numberice sent by hand and ultimately a companyplaint against the appellant came to be filed on 26.6.2003 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter called the State Commission for short .
There was then lot of companyrespondence between September, 2002 and March, 2003 as regards the Modules supplied.
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.
The respondent, however, sent a legal numberice to the appellant through its Advocate on 4.4.2003, wherein it alleged deficiency in services rendered by the appellant with respect to all seven Modules developed by the appellant.
By its order dated 4.3.2004, the State Commission accepted the appellants preliminary objection and dismissed the companyplaint.
The respondent thereafter started companyplaining about the working of some Modules.
On 30.3.1999, the appellant informed the respondent that the changes suggested by the respondent had been successfully carried out.
The respondent companyplainant, therefore, filed First Appeal No.
On 15.4.2002, the respondent wrote a letter to the appellant identifying the problems with various Modules of the software, which letter was replied to by the appellant.
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.
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 number cleared till then.
That software was to take care of Financial Accounting, 2 Production, 3 Marketing, 4 Purchase, 5 Stores Inventory, 6 Fixed Assets, and 7 Pay Roll and Personnel System.
It seems that till February, 2000, the payment of the appellant was number released requiring the appellant to write to the respondent for the same.
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.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
The appellant again wrote to the respondent for payment in the month of April, 2001.
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 companyplaint 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.
The appellant had sent a detailed proposal for developing certain companyputer software for the respondent at a companyt of Rs.36 lacs on 11.2.1998.
