KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 317/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 21.02.2019

(Against the order in C.C. 295/2013 of CDRF, Malappuram)

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN           : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                            : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

          District Office, IT @ School, Malappuram, Pin-676 505.

           (By Adv. Meena. C.R)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Devayani. C, SVHSS, Palemad, Edakkara (via), Palemad, Malappuram-676 302.
2. R.P. Infosystems Pvt. Ltd., Aysha Tower, 43/2614, K & K 5 Sastha Temple Road, Kaloor, Kochi-18 now functioning at its Corporate Office, 4^th Floor, Regent House, 12, Govt. Place (East), Kolkata-700 069.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

2^nd opposite party in C.C. No. 295/2013 of the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Malappuram has filed the appeal challenging the Order of the forum directing refund of the price of the laptop, Rs. 17,770/- with interest at 10% per annum from the date of complaint with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. 

2.  In short, case of the complainant, a school teacher, is that she had purchased a laptop for a consideration of Rs. 17,770/- under “Laptop and Net Book for the Teacher Scheme” conducted at IT @ School on 14.05.2011.  The laptop became defective and representation made for curing the defects before the opposite parties were not heeded to was her case to claim compensation.  The manufacturer of the laptop, after service remained absent and 2^nd opposite party also remained ex-parte.  The appellant/2^nd opposite party filed version contending that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party, that they have only arranged a platform for the teachers to provide laptop at cheaper rates, that the appellant brought those in need of laptop into a common platform as a mere facilitator and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.  The appellant has no liability to compensate the complainant since the purchase was directly made by complainant from the manufacturer of her choice and further even if the laptop was found defective complainant can realize compensation only from the manufacturer. 

3.  On the materials produced by both sides which consisted of the testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 on her side and counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd opposite party, lower forum coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency of service on the part of  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties passed the impugned order holding that they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant as indicated.  Aggrieved by that Order appellant/2^nd opposite party has preferred the present appeal. 

4.  We heard the counsels for both sides and perused the records.  We notice that the lower forum solely relied on a judgment rendered by this Commission previously in another appeal involving identical matter.  No discussion was made over the contentions taken by the appellant herein that they have no liability for the transaction involved, supply of laptop to teachers under a government scheme.  Perusing the circular produced by the appellant/2^nd opposite party in similar cases and also taking note that purchase and distribution of laptop to school teachers was intended to equip them with the skills of information technology we find that a close scrutiny of the contentions raised by the appellant/2^nd opposite party with reference to the circular was called for to determine whether they had joint liability with the 1^st opposite party to compensate the claim made if at all the laptop purchased was found to be defective.  Going through the circular we find that the teachers who are covered by the scheme had to collect laptops from the companies who have been short listed and selected by the 2^nd opposite party directly paying the price.  Evidently the 2^nd opposite party has co-ordinated the implementation of the scheme with no direct involvement in the transaction.  No doubt purchase of laptop under the scheme could be made by teachers only from the manufacturer selected by the opposite parties. But their role is limited to implementation of the project as stipulated under the circular.  When that be so, it cannot be stated that they have got direct involvement in the purchase and supply of laptops to the teachers who participated in the project.  Fixing joint liability on the 2^nd opposite party with 1^st opposite party for the reason they have co-ordinated the implementation of the project is unsustainable.  The 1^st opposite party, manufacturer has not resisted the claim of the complainant.  The liability to compensate the complainant as ordered by the lower forum vested only with the 1^st opposite party/manufacturer.  Order passed fixing joint liability on the appellant/2^nd opposite party as well in the complaint by the lower forum shall stand vacated. 

Appeal is allowed directing refund of the sum deposited by the appellant for entertaining the appeal on their application. 

Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 

                                                                                         JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb