DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 31st day of August 2016.
C.C.No. 63 Of 2014.
Roshani Public School, At- Sudpara,Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S &
Dist- Bolangir, represented through it’s Managing Director
Rabindra Kumar Agrawal,age-54 years son of late Budharam
Agrawal Resident of Sadapada, Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S &
Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Mexus Education Pvt. Ltd. Registered office at Survey No.153/2/A
Muktanand Marg,Chala, VAPI, Dist-VALSAD, 396001,Gujarat.
Represented through it’s Director Anil Goyal.
2.MexusEducation Pvt.Ltd, 208,Om Villa Shree Vihar, Patia,Bhubaneswar,
751031, At present Plot No.9, PokharanVJillage Chandra Sekharpur,
Bhubaneswar-751016, represented through it’s Regional Manager,
Sri Santosh Mohanty.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the Complainant- Sri G.C.Naik & Associates.
Adv. for the Opp.Parties - Sri B.C.Pradhan.
Date of filing of the case-03.09.2014
Date of order -31.08.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
The brief fact of this case is that the complainant is the Managing Director of Roshni Public School which is an Educational Institution registered under the Society Act. The has averred in his complaint petition that O.Ps are business concern constituted under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on their business all over Odisa through O.P.No.2, the Regional Manager appointed by O.P.1 for circulation in Odisha Zone. The O.P.2 came to Bolangir and gave proposal on dated 20.1.2012 to start Iken school Ecosystem/Smart class in the institution of Roshani Public school. Accordingly after negotiation the complainant vide his letter dated 7.2.2012 sent his consent to accept the proposal and on the same day made an agreement with the O.Ps under the terms and conditions contained therein to start the classes from 7.3.2012 along with Contract Agreement for Hardware and for service signed by School Authority and handed over a cheque of Rs 50,000/- vide No.431857 to install Smart classes in twelve class rooms as first month advance.
2. The complainant has further alleged that according to the terms and conditions at para 1.2 of the agreement, he executed the work of electric cabling and fittings in each class room, audio visual room as per required specification and also electricity and civil work assistance as required to set up the class room. Thereafter the O.Ps sent their expert technical persons and completed the hard ware work and installation work and accordingly the complainant installed two numbers of 8KVA voltage stabilizers for running of the systems.
3. The O.Ps after installation work, imparted training on dt.12.4.2012.When the teachers were about to start classes found the contents of books are not uploaded in the system installed in the premises, and due to mismatching of contents, classes could not be started and the residential expert expressed his inability to match the contents and left the school, so the projects installed in the school were not functioning.
4, The complainant thereafter requested the O.Ps vide his letter dated 15.7.2012, to terminate the agreement due to non functioning of the projectors and non availability of contents but after receiving this letter the O.Ps assured the complainant to resolve the difficulties within one week by sending Lenevo and Optuma Engineers agreeing damage of motherboards and projectors. The O.Ps even after giving assurance as they have not solved the difficulties, the complainant requested the O.Ps vide his letter dated 17.8.2012,21.3.2013, 28.8.2013, and also sent an e-mail on dated 16.9.2013 to the O.Ps to remove the hardware, boards etc.from the class rooms.
5. The complainant has further alleged that the O.Ps instead of solving the difficulties on dated 7.1.2014, sent a notice through their advocate demanding payment by raising various invoices from time to time and the complainant sent reply on dt.17.1.2014 and requested them to return back the hardware, board and other equipments. Thereafter again the O.Ps also sent another Advocates notice on dated 1.8.2014 demanding total value of hard ware amounting to Rs 19,50,000/- along with invoice amount raising rs 3,62,775/-.
6. The complainant has alleged further that instead of solving the situation the O.Ps are bent upon to collect the cost of the hardware and other equipment along with invoice amount illegally and unlawfully. And due to non compliance and negligence and supply of insufficient hard ware and mismatching of contents of the books, the complainant could not start smart classes from the beginning which was committed by the O.Ps. The complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony for the situation caused. During course of hearing the complainant has filed an affidavit to remove the hardware boards and other equipments from the class rooms and to lift the same. Hence he has filed the present case against the O.Ps praying to refund the deposit amount of Rs 50,000/- along with compensation and litigation expenses amounting to Rs 10,50,00/-, to remove and to lift the hardware and other equipments installed in the class rooms, and other relief which this forum thinks and deems fit and proper.
7. In support to his case the complainant has filed Registration Certificate of the institution dated 18.12.2006 along with bye-laws, Agreement between them, letter dated 17.1.2014 sent to the O.Ps, a list of mails and letters sent to the O.Ps, Proposal letter dated 20.1.2012 along with annexure-2. sent by the O.Ps to the complainat, Letter of acceptance dt.7.2.2012 and letter dated 15.7.2012, sent by the complainant to the O.Ps to terminate the agreement and an affidavit dated 27.07.2016 filed during hearing of the case.
8. The O.Ps appeared after receipt of notice of this forum and filed their version jointly admitting their business at Bolangir, Agreement executed between them, payment of Rs 50,000/- made by the complainant to them and execution of civil work, electrical cabling and fittings in each classroom, audio visual room which was done as per the terms and conditions, by the complainant but they disputed all other allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition. The O.Ps have further stated in their version that the present forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the documents were executed at Vapi, Gujarat and all the transaction were done from Vapi Gujarat and pray for dismissal of the case. The O.Ps have filed one letter dated 12.04.2012 issued by the complainant to them as their supporting document..
9. We have heard from the both parties Advocates at length and perused the documents availed on record thoroughly.
10. On the question of maintainability, we have admitted the case, basing on a decision reported in III (2009) CPJ 5 CC, Karnatak, (Power Transmission, Corporation-Versus- Ashok Iron Works Pvt.Ltd. ) decided on 9.2.2009. Therefore, at a later stage, we also hold that this case is maintainable.
11. The O.Ps have further raised the question regarding jurisdiction of the present forum to adjudicate the matter stating that the agreement is executed by and between the parties at Vapi and all the transactions were done from Vapi (Gujarat) and the materials supplied from Vapi.,so this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case. In this issue, the complainant has clearly stated in his complaint petition at para-2 that O.P.No.2 personally came to Bolangir,and gave proposal/offer on dt.20.1.2012 by explaining details of software ,hardware and services to be supplied by them etc and after executing the agreement, for doing all civil work and electrical, by the complainant, the O.Ps have sent their expert technical persons to start installation of hardware work and they completed the installation work within one month. The version of the O.Ps is completely silent regarding installation of hardware and software work by them. However, they have admitted in their version that the O.P.2 goes for the marketing and also given the details of the terms and conditions .Therefore, when the O.Ps have personally come to Bolangir for marketing of their hardware and software and installed the same through their technical persons at Bolangir, then it is clear that the present forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
12. It is an admitted fact that agreement was done between the complainant and the O.Ps, and according to the agreement terms and conditions of the agreement, on the date of acceptance of the agreement the complainant has paid Rs 50,000/- to the O.Ps and thereafter the O.Ps sent their technical persons to start installation of hardware work and they completed the installation work within one month and the complainant installed two numbers of 8KVA voltage stabilizers in the School for running of the systems. Thereafter the O.Ps imparted training on 12.4.2012 which was successful.
13. The facts of dispute remain that the O.Ps have not appointed residential expert immediately after the installation of equipments and training, for which the complainant vide his letter dt 15.7.2012 requested the O.Ps to terminate the agreement due to lying of idle projectors and non availability of contents. In reply to the aforesaid letter the O.Ps sent a mail on 17.7.2012 to the complainant requesting to withdraw the notice and assured him to resolve the difficulties within one week by sending Lenevo and Optuma Engineers agreeing damage of motherboards and projectors. After the aforesaid development on 20.7.2012 the teachers were appointed by the O.Ps. When the teachers were about to start classes found the contents of books are not uploaded in the system installed in the premises in the mean time, therefore due to mismatching of contents classes could not be started and the teachers expressed their inability to match the contents and left the school. Even thereafter as the O.Ps remained silent and have not resolved the problems, the complainant vide his letter dated 17.8.2012 and 21.3.2013 requested the O.Ps to terminate the agreement and to return back the installed hardware. Thereafter on 28.8.2013 the complainant has also sent a letter to O.P.2 elaborately stating to withdraw the hardware and on 16.9.2013 sent mail to Anil Goyal director of the O.Ps to remove the hardware, boards etc from the class rooms.
14. When the matter was stood thus, the O.Ps instead of solving the problems and situation sent Advocate’s notice demanding payment by raising various invoices from time to time and other outstanding balance amounting to Rs 9,86,500/-. In reply the complainant sent a letter stating a detail report regarding the truth of the case and requested to return back the installed hardware, mother board and other equipments lying idle in the School premises. After receipt of this reply from the complainant, the O.Ps sent again an Advocate’s notice on dated 1.8.2014 demanding the total cost of the hardware amounting to Rs 19,50,000/- and invoice amount Rs 3,62,775/-.
15. The O.Ps have filed their version elaborately but cunningly without stating a single word regarding mismatching of contents raised by the residential experts appointed by them, non functioning of projectors which were installed in the school and also their inability to match the contents and left the School. However, they have admitted in their version at para 14 regarding settlement of the dispute but the complainant was not ready to settle. The O.Ps have also raised the aforesaid fact during course of hearing of the case before the forum, but till conclusion of hearing the dispute was not materialized between the parties rather both parties argued their case vehemently.
16. We have perused the agreement between the parties thoroughly regarding its terms and conditions which should be performed by both the parties properly.
17. The O.Ps have not stated in their version that they have performed their part of contract according to the agreement executed between them. They have violated the aforesaid terms because when their technical persons left the School due to the problems faced and mismatching of contents raised by them and after the aforesaid development the O.Ps remained silent without taking any step. Therefore, in our opinion, the O.Ps have not rendered their service properly according to the terms and condition of the agreement and have not solved the mismatch contents rather bent upon to collect money from the complainant.
18. The complainant had not made any prayer in his complaint petition regarding removal of the hardware and mother boards from the class rooms and to lifting the same by the O.Ps though contents of the complaint petition shows this fact followed by some letters, but during course of hearing the complainant has filed an affidavit stating to lift the hardware and boards by the O.Ps due to latest technology and the articles have been damaged due to lying idle since long. We consider it as a genuine prayer because due to lying idle the electronic parts might have damaged.
19. Thus in view of the discussion made above, we have no other option but come to an irresistible conclusion that the complainant has suffered financial loss in starting Iken classes in his School due to violation of the terms and conditions of the O.Ps, according to the agreement made between both of them which is very clear on the face of record, therefore, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Hence ordered;
ORDER.
The O.Ps are directed to remove the hardware, boards etc supplied and installed by them from the school of the complainant and lift the same at their own cost and to refund Rs 50,000/- to the complainant which was paid by him, within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay Rs 10/- per day as compensation to the complainant till removal of the equipments and payment of Rs 50,000/-.
No order as to compensation and cost.
ORDER PRONOUNED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016.
(S.Rath) (P.Samantara) (G.K.Rath)
MEMBER PRESIDENT. MEMBER.
