Timely Intervention Matters Address disputes promptly. The sooner you engage in ADR, the greater the chance of finding a resolution before tensions escalate. Early intervention can save time, costs, and relationships.
In this case, the Claimant, an individual based in Mumbai and employed in a corporate company, entered into an agreement with the Respondent, a Trading Platform that claimed to provide services to enhance trading system with technology. The Respondent claimed to provide cutting-edge technology for trading systems, including a Strategy Builder that offered a systematic approach to automate the tracking and execution of signals in real-time. However, a dispute arose when the Respondent failed to pay the disputed amount of Rs. 38,000/- to the Claimant. As a result, the Claimant decided to escalate the matter to PrivateCourt for settlement.
The dispute between the Claimant and the Respondent stemmed from the non-payment of the disputed amount. The Claimant availed the services of the Respondent's trading platform, attracted by their promise of providing the best technology for trading systems. The Respondent's Strategy Builder offered a systematic approach to automate signal tracking and execution in real-time. However, the Claimant faced significant issues with the system's performance and reliability, leading to financial losses.
The Claimant contended that the Respondent had failed to deliver the promised benefits, thereby causing substantial financial harm. The Claimant sought compensation for the losses incurred, demanding the payment of the disputed amount of Rs. 38,000/-.
In addition to the previous reasons mentioned, two more factors contributed to the dispute between the Claimant and the Respondent:
a) Lack of Technical Support: The Claimant encountered difficulties in accessing technical support from the Respondent when issues arose with the trading platform. Despite the Respondent's claims of providing the best technology, the Claimant experienced a lack of responsiveness and assistance when seeking help to resolve system-related problems. The Claimant argues that the inadequate technical support hindered their ability to effectively use the trading platform and exacerbated the financial losses incurred.
b) Misrepresentation of Performance: The Respondent's trading platform may have misrepresented its performance capabilities. The Claimant asserts that the platform failed to deliver the expected results and did not live up to the claims made by the Respondent. The Claimant argues that the system's performance fell short of the promised benefits, leading to financial losses that could have been avoided if the platform had performed as advertised. The misrepresentation of the platform's capabilities forms a significant aspect of the Claimant's case, highlighting a breach of trust and the basis for seeking compensation.
On the other hand, the Respondent disputed any liability for the payment, asserting that their trading platform indeed offered advanced technology. They argued that the Claimant's financial losses were unrelated to their services and were due to the Claimant's lack of understanding or misuse of the technology.
Upon receiving the case, the PrivateCourt team promptly took charge of handling the matter. They sent a notice to both parties, requesting relevant documents and evidence to support their respective claims. The team diligently vetted the submitted materials, ensuring adherence to established protocols and maintaining an unbiased approach.
The lead Sole Conciliator from PrivateCourt scheduled a Conciliation via Zoom and audio conference calls in accordance with the Notice of Conciliation. However, before the conciliation session could take place, both the Respondent and the Claimant engaged in positive discussions regarding a possible settlement. The Respondent promptly informed PrivateCourt of their intention to settle the dispute amicably.
Subsequently, a settlement agreement was drafted to formalize the terms of the resolution. As per the agreement, the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant the settled amount of Rs. 38,000/-. The payment was to be made on or before 10th March 2023. Both parties acknowledged that any future claims or disputes arising from the settlement agreement would be resolved through e-arbitration, following the rules set by PrivateCourt.
The most suitable inference for this case is that despite the initial dispute and disagreement between the Claimant and the Respondent, both parties eventually reached a mutually satisfactory resolution. The involvement of PrivateCourt facilitated effective communication and negotiation, ultimately leading to the amicable settlement of the dispute. The willingness of the Respondent to agree to the payment of the disputed amount indicates a recognition of the Claimant's valid concerns. This resolution allows both parties to move forward and avoid protracted legal proceedings, emphasising the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution methods.
