BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 29th FEBRUARY 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 502/2014
(Admitted on 27.12.2014)
M/s Suraj Educational and Charitable Trust (R)
Rep. by its Chariman,
Having its Office at B.C.Road Cross,
Mudipu, Mangalore.
And Facilitators of the Service
For, the Student Beneficiaries at
M/s. Suraj International Higher Primary School,
Mudipu, Mangalore.
…….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri Manu Sharma S.P.)
VERSUS
1. M/s Educomp Services Ltd.,
Rep by its Managing Director,
1211-Padma Tower-1, 5,
Rajendra Palace, New Delhi,
2. M/s Edusmart Services Pvt., Ltd.,
Rep by its Authorised Signatory,
1211-Padma Tower-1,5
Rajendra Palace, New Delhi.
……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 : Ex-parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act as against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant is a charitable trust does not charge any donations for the students. It is stated that the Opposite Parties are engaged in business of implantation of smart class programme comprising of sale of hardware and making available the repository of digital content of the student studying in the educational institution belonging to the complainant. As per the wide advertisement in electronic and print media by the Opposite Parties the complainant had opted to install the smart class program comprising of sale of hardware and making available the repository of digital content in the institution of complainant. After mutual discussion the complainant and Opposite Parties had entered into an agreement dated 29.09.2010. The complainant had invested lakhs of rupees to install the said hardware in their school. It is stated that ever since the installation the Opposite Parties have to provide uninterrupted service and technical knowhow only for a period commencing from 29.09.2011–02.04.2013 amounting to Rs. 4,99,499/-. In-spite of the payment of aforesaid amount in installment to the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties did not provide any service as assured by them. The smart class programme could not be imparted to the students.
It is stated that ever since the installation and the hardware programme by the Opposite Parties, the system installed by the Opposite Parties stopped working, with regard to the afforced technical problems the programme could not be successfully continued in the institution. It is stated that, the complainant had complained with regard to the improper maintenance and defectives smart class programme to the Opposite Parties as per their letter dated 19.07.2013, 19.07.2013, 19.07.2013, 19.07.2013, 14.01.2014, 14.03.2014, 08.07.2014, 12.08.2014, 08.10.2014 and 01.11.2014. The Opposite Parties even after receiving the complaints never responded to the grievances of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service, and hence the above complaint filed U/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 4,99,499/- along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of payment till the realization to the complainant along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the opposite parties by R.P.A.D, even after receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this Fora till this date. Hence we have proceeded ex-parte as against the opposite parties.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Manjunath S. Revankar (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C8. Opposite Parties placed ex-parte.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i) and (ii): Affirmative
Point No. (iii) As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):
The complainant i.e. CW-1 in order to substantiate the averments made in the complaints filed affidavit and produced documents i.e. exhibit C1 to C8. On perusal of the documents i.e. Ex C-7 agreement dated 29.09.2010 reveals that the opposite party entered into an agreement with the complainant and installed smart class programme i.e. comprising of hardware and making available the repository of digital content to the students studying in the educational institution. In order to provide the said smart class program the complainant institution paid Rs. 4,99,499/- to the Opposite Parties in this case. However the exhibit C1 to exhibit C6 i.e. the correspondences between to provide service and the complainant institution not able to start lesson through the smart class and thereafter there are several communications between the complainant and Opposite Parties. But the Opposite Party failed to attend the complaint of the complainant and there by this smart class programme installed by Opposite Parties became vain. The agreement entered between parties reveals that the complainant paid Rs. 4,99,436/- to the Opposite Parties. Once the agreement is entered it is the bounded duty of the parties to adhere to the terms and conditions entered in the said agreement. Similarly it is the bounded duty of the Opposite Parties to bound by the agreement and perform the obligations. But in the instant case in-spite of receiving complaint from the complainant, the Opposite Parties are not bothered to attend the complaint rather demanding the remaining installments appears to be perverse.
Apart from the above the Opposite Parties in-spite of receiving version notice not appeared nor contested the case till this date. The entire material evidence produced by the complainant are not challenged nor contradicted which requires no further proof. By considering the documents produced by the complainant we hold that the Opposite Party not attended the complaint of the complainant and the smart class programme is not in working condition. Hence the Opposite Parties are liable to refund the entire amount received by them i.e. Rs. 4,99,436/-.
In view of the above discussion, we hereby directed the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to refund the entire amount Rs. 4,99,436 along with the interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment and also pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties jointly and severally to refund the entire amount Rs. 4,99,436 along with the interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment and also pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of FEBRUARY 2016).
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW-1 : Manjunath.S.Revankar, – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex. C1 :19.07.2013: C/c the letters addressed by the
complainant to the opposite parties total 4 in numbers.
Ex. C2 :17.01.2014: Copy of the letter addressed by the
complainant to opposite parties.
Ex. C3 :14.03.2014: Copy of the letter addressed by the
complainant to opposite parties.
Ex. C4 :12.08.2014: Copy of the letter addressed by the
complainant to opposite parties.
Ex. C5 :08.10.2014: Copy of the letter addressed by the
complainant to opposite parties.
Ex. C6:01.11.2014: Copy of the letter addressed by the
complainant to Opposite Parties.
Ex. C7:29.09.2010: Copy of the agreement.
Ex. C8:27.08.2015: Original cost paid Receipt.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties :
Nil
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 29.02.2016. PRESIDENT
