Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/22

DISTRICT CO ORDINATOR IT SCHOOL MALAPPURAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

C NISHA - Opp.Party(s)

M NIZARUDHEEN

12 Mar 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.22/2015

JUDGMENT DATED : 12.03.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.193/2013 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram order dated : 23.09.2014)

 

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER

APPELLANT

The District Co-ordinator,

IT @ School, Malappuram

Malappuram,

Pin – 676 505

 

(By Adv.Sri.M.Nizarudeen, Addl.Govt Pleader & Public Prosecutor)

　

Vs

　

RESPONDENTS

1. C.Nisha,

Ushanivas,

Pandamangalam,

Kottakkal.P.O

Malappuram District – 673639

Souparnika, Ambalamukku,

Malayamma.P.O

Kozhikode – 643 601

　

2. R.P.INFOSYSTEMS PVT LTD,

Aysha Tower, 43/2614,

K & K 5 Sastha Temple Road,

Kaloor, Kochi - 18

Now functioning as its

Corporate Office,

4^{th Floor, Regent House -12}

^{Govt .Place (East) , Kolkata – 700069}

^JUDGMENT

 

^{SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER}

^{The second opposite party in CC.No.193/2013 in the CDRF, Malappuram has preferred this appeal along with an application to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. The first respondent / complainant is a school teacher at Kottakkal Govt Rajas English School. She had purchased a chirage branded Lap top for a consideration of Rs.17,700/- on 14.05.2011 under the " Lap Top and net book for teachers" scheme implemented through the second opposite party. The complainant alleged that within two days of purchase the laptop became defective and it was replaced with a new one. But the replaced laptop itself became defective after one year but within the warranty period. Though the first opposite party was intimated about the defect there was no response. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant sought refund of the price of the laptop.}

^{2. Before the district forum the first opposite party remained exparte. The second opposite party appellant contended that they had no consumer relationship with the complainant. They have only arranged a common platform for teachers and various companies to provide Lap top for cheaper prices. The price of the laptop was directly paid to the first opposite party. Opposite party no.2 had only a limited role as facilitator of the transaction.}

^{3. The district forum after recording evidence adduced by the parties and hearing them held that the complainant was entitled to get refund of the price of the laptop. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded towards the mental agony and hardships of the complainant. The second opposite party aggrieved by the order has preferred this appeal.}

^{4. The learned additional govt pleader who appeared for the appellant was heard in detail to decide whether the appeal is to be admitted for hearing or not. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the laptop supplied as per a scheme implemented by the appellant. From the version itself it is clear that they had arranged common platform for purchase of the laptop. In fact, the evidence appears to be that the purchase was made at the centre of the appellant. The contention is that the cost of the laptop was paid directly to the manufacturer, the first opposite party. But the fact that the laptop became defective within the warranty period itself is not disputed. The opposite parties also have no case that they were ready to repair the laptop or to provide a new one though the defect appeared within the warranty period.}

^{5. As to the contention that there is no consumer relationship between the appellant and the complainant, it is pertinent to notice that as a coordinator for the supply of laptops the appellant had played a major role in influencing the mind of the teacher community to proceed with the purchase. But for the initiative of the appellant such a sale would not have taken place and for all practical purposes the appellant acted as the dealer for the supply of the laptop. Now the appellant cannot turn round and disown responsibility.}

^{6. As to the contention taken in the memorandum of appeal, it may be mentioned that the consideration for the service provided need not be monetary . The government implemented the scheme with a view to improve the efficiency of teachers and to provide the teachers and students with computer education and that would certainly help in obtaining better service from the teachers. This is sufficient consideration. So we are of the firm view that the appellant is equally answerable to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. In this view of the matter and in the light of the admitted facts it is unnecessary to admit the appeal for hearing. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.}

 

^{K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER}

 





^{A.RADHA : MEMBER}

 





^{SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER}

 

^BE/





























^{KERALA STATE}

^{CONSUMER DISPUTES}

^{REDRESSAL COMMISSION}

^{SISUVIHARLANE}

^VAZHUTHACADU

^{THIRUVANANTHAPURAM}

 

^{APPEAL NO.22/2015}

^JUDGMENT

^{DATED : 12.03.2015}

 



^BE/