By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-
The complaint filed against the opposite parties for non issuance of a computer system and net connection free of cost as offered by the opposite party.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- On 2010 March 31st there was a phone call from the Telephone Exchange at Irulam informing the complainant's brother that on payments of Rs.2,290/- a computer system and free net connections are given to the interested parties, the complainant's brother was also informed that if he was in need of computer, he was asked to reach Telephone Exchange before 4 'O' clock on a particular day. The brother of the complainant informed the complainant this offer and complainant on a particular day had given Rs.2,290/- to the person in the Telephone Exchange after filling up an application form. The receipt for the down payment was not given to the complainant. On June 7th 2010 computer system along with net connection was given to the complainant and towards the service charge the person who engaged in connecting the system received Rs.250/-. The system became non functional on the very next day and the attempt of the complainant to contact the parties were failed miserably. The telephone numbers given to the complainant for contact were also not receiving calls. There may been an order directing opposite party to pay the complainant Rs.50,000/- towards the cost and compensation.
3. The 1st opposite party filed version in short it is as follows:- The 1st opposite party was engaged in receiving the order for the installation of the system and the applications of the interested parties were forwarded to the 2nd opposite party, and this opposite party was engaged in the post of DSA in 6 districts having no other role apart from acting for t he 2nd and 3rd opposite parties
and for that purpose no remuneration was received from the consumers in normal case. The interested party has to take DD Rs.2,259/- in favor of the Novatium Solutions that is the 2nd opposite party, whereas this opposite party for the village connections on receivel of the amount Rs.2.259/- take DD and send it to the 2nd opposite party. When the system was received the 2nd opposite party supplied net connection. Subsequent periodical service and customer care are done by the 2nd
opposite party. The CPU if found to be not working it is to be rectified by the 2nd opposite party. The server of BSNL Nova PC is BSNL and Novatium Solutions. If any loss incurred to the complainant it is to be met by the Novatium Solutions and their dealer Manoj Aurora system Kottayam and BSNL togetherly. The PC computer of the 2nd opposite party found to be substandard and this opposite party withheld 115 systems without delivering to the parties. The 1st opposite party believes that 2nd and 3rd opposite parties jointly extracted subsidy amount from the government for the installation of computer system to make a awareness for the public. The Novatium solutions Private Limited and General Manager BSNL are necessary parties to resolve the dispute in issue. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to this opposite parties.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed version in short it is as follows:- No agreement was signed with the complainant by the 2nd opposite party for free net connection and computer system. The allegation of the complainant that free net connection and computer system was given to him is not correct. The 2nd opposite party get a customer application form of the complainant from their channel partner in Kerala that is M/s. Aurora system and it was later subsequently terminated. The 2nd opposite party as a firm delivered proper service to the customers, the complainant if mishandled or improperly used the system and if any complaint resulted from that the 2nd opposite party is not responsible for it. It is admitted that the complainant contacted 2nd opposite party 3 times the customer care and the complainant was advised to contact the service center. The complaint itself deserves no merit it is to be dismissed with cost.
5. The 3rd opposite party filed version in brief it is as follows:- The 3rd opposite party is not a necessary party in this case. The amount Rs.2,290/- alleged as paid for computer system and free net
connection at Irulam Telephone Exchange are to be proved by the complainant. The 3rd opposite party entered in to tie up arrangement with opposite party No.2 for bundling the opposite party 2's thin client based Nova Utility Services with this opposite parties to broad band connection and an agreement was executed between the parties on terms and conditions. The responsibility of this opposite party is to arrange broad band connectivity. The 1st opposite party is responsible for installation of P.C, Keyboard, Monitor and Set Top Box. The 3rd opposite party is only connected for broad band connectivity alone to the end user. The application and other formalities were initiated by 1st opposite party, the quality of the system and other things are not related to 2nd opposite party. The broad band connectivity to the end user on satisfaction of the formalities are rest upon this opposite party. In this case the 2nd opposite party has not given the broadband services. The failure of the system not at all connected to the 2nd opposite party and complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
6. The points in consideration are:-
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
7. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consist of proof affidavit of the complainant. Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 are the documents. The dispute in issue is that the computer system installed on acceptance of offered amount is defective. The system is not functional and the net connections offered by BSNL is also not available. Ext.A1 is the notice which published that a mere expense of Rs.3,891/- interested parties could be getting Nova Net PC plus other benefits. The complainant paid the amount but no receipt were produced. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant installed Nova Net PC in anticipation of different offers. The 1st opposite party
acted as a implementing agent of the scheme. Ext.A4 is the bills 4 in numbers issued to the complainant by the 3rd opposite party. The additional amount for the usage of Nova system is seen demanded in the bill but it is cut off later on application of the complainant. It is admitted by the 1st opposite party and to an extent by the 3rd opposite party that the system is inoperative and no periodical service and warranty is given to the complainant. The system was installed on receival of Rs.2 ,259/- by 1st opposite party . The 3rd opposite party is in tie up with the 2nd opposite party in the installation of computer system and net connection. Though it was charged by 3rd opposite party it was later reduced from the bill amount. It is the settled position that if any dispute differences arises between the BSNL and the consumer the dispute or any condition that is to be decided by arbitration proceedings that is the dictum given by the Honorable Apex Court (General Manager Telecom V/s M. Krishnan and another, civil appeal No.76/87 of 2004.). In the instant case the 3rd opposite party levied no charge from the complainant. The 1st opposite party is only an activator of the scheme. The periodical services and the warranty of the system are to be maintained by 2nd opposite party but they themselves abstained from rendering the service. The 2nd opposite party has to refund Rs.2,259/- the amount admittedly received by 2nd opposite party along with cost and compensation.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The 2nd opposite party is directed to refund Rs.2,259/-(Rupees Two Thousand and Two Hundred Fifty Nine Only) to the complainant along with Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) towards cost and compensation. This to be complied by 2nd opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 31st August 2011.
Date of filing:02.08.2010.
