Tripura

StateCommission

A/5/2018

The Union of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

eWit infotech Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Biswanath Majumder

25 May 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.5.2018

 

 

1. The Union of India,

Represented by the Secretary/Commissioner, DARE,

Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,

Department of Agriculture Research and Education, (DARE),

Government of India,

New Delhi, Pin: 110015.

 

2. The Registrar,

Central Agricultural Universities,

Lamphelpat, Imphal West, Manipur,

Pin: 795004.

 

3. The Dean,

College of Fisheries,

Central Agricultural University,

Lembucherra, District - West Tripura,

Pin: 799210.

… … … … … Appellant/Complainants.

Vs

 

1. eWit Infotech P. Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

2, Thakur Samey Singh Vatika,

Kakrola Village, Sector - 16,

Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078.

 

2. The Director,

eWit Infotech P. Ltd.,

2, Thakur Samey Singh Vatika,

Kakrola Village, Sector - 16,

Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078.

 

3. Authorised Officials/Signatories,

eWit Infotech P. Ltd.,

2, Thakur Samey Singh Vatika,

Kakrola Village, Sector - 16,

Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078.

… … … … … Respondent/Opposite Parties.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

For the Appellants:                                          Mr. Biswanath Majumdar, CGC.

For the Respondents:                                                 Absent.                 

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:                  25.05.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, the Union of India and two others challenging the judgment and order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No.C.C.10 of 2017 along with an application for condoning the delay of 38 days in preferring the appeal. 

2. Today the matter is fixed for order on condonation petition as well as admission hearing.
3. Notice was issued upon the respondents and upon receipt of the notice, the respondents, namely, eWit Infotech Pvt. Ltd., the Director, eWit Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and Authorised Signatories of eWit Infotech Pvt. Ltd. have responded to the notice by way of sending a letter.
4. Heard Mr. Biswanath Majumdar, Ld. CGC appearing on behalf of the appellant-complainants. None appears on behalf of the respondent-opposite parties.  
5. We have gone through the condonation petition wherein it is stated that the impugned judgment was delivered on 07.11.2017 and the appeal was filed on or before 07.12.2017. It is contended that the delay was caused in preferring appeal due to time taken by Ld. Counsel i.e. the Ld. A.S.G for giving his legal opinion and also preparing the memo of appeal by the Ld. Counsel. According to us, the delay has been properly explained and accordingly, the delay of 38 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. As agreed to by Mr. Majumdar Ld. CGC for the appellants, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.  
6. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The appellants (hereinafter referred to as complainants/petitioners) submitted an application before the learned District Forum alleging that the Dean of the College of Fisheries, Lembucherra, the complainant no.3 made contact with the respondents eWit Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Firm) for installation of CC TV in all six constituent colleges spread over the entire North East Zone. 16 nos. of CC TV was to be installed as per contract with the opposite parties. The firm of the opposite parties accepted the terms and conditions. 16 nos. of CC TV were installed on payment of Rs.3,27,984/-, but the CC TV installed by the opposite parties were not properly working and four cameras were completely out of order. After filing of the complaint case, opposite parties-eWit Infotech Pvt. Ltd. deputed some engineers for completion of the work, but failed. As the opposite parties failed to remove the defects of the CC TV and the cameras, the complainants prayed for refund of the amount for deficiency of service of the opposite parties by way of filing the complaint petition. The opposite parties did not contest the case though sent some letter by post.    

7. Complainants submitted all papers/documents, copy of tender form, specification of equipment, copy of the quotation, camera model, correspondences with the opposite parties-Firm by the Dean of the College i.e. the complainant no.3, sanction memo and other correspondences. Complainants also submitted the statement on affidavit of one Dr. Prasanjit Pal, Assistant Professor as authorized by the complainants and he was also examined as P.W.1.
8.  The learned District Forum considering the evidence on record held that out of Rs.41,000/-, Rs.39,248/- was not paid. So, that payment should not be made by the petitioner and the petitioner will get back Rs.3,000/- as four cameras were not working and the petitioner is also entitled to get Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service along with cost of litigation amounting to Rs.3,000/-, in total Rs.56,000/- and thus disposed of the complaint petition directing the opposite parties, eWit Infotech Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs.56,000/- to the petitioner for their deficiency in service.  
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned District Forum, the complainants filed the instant appeal for enhancement of the amount.  
10. Mr. Majumdar, Ld. CGC while urging for enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned District Forum would contend that the learned District Forum ought to have held that the college sustained a loss of Rs.81,920/- (i.e. Rs.65,000/- + Rs.16,920/-) due to non-functioning of remaining two PTZ cameras and cables which was nothing but deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, Firm. He further submits that the award passed by the learned District Forum is unjust and incorrect. The appellants-complainants are entitled to get Rs.81,920/- towards cost of the cameras and cables wire and also compensation therewith for deficiency of service.
11. None appears for the respondent-opposite parties, eWit Infotech Pvt. Ltd. We have gone through the letter submitted by them wherein the respondent-opposite parties made a prayer before this Commission to direct the complainants-College to release the Company’s pending payment of Rs.39,248/- against the PO No/CAU-CF/12/23/VOL.11/CCTV/2014-Complab/1327 dated 23.07.2016 and also release the security deposit of Rs.19,499/-.  
12. We have also gone through the complaint petition and also the evidence on record. From the complaint petition, it appears that the complaint petition is filed by the Union of India represented by the Secretary/Commissioner, DARE, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture Research and Education, (DARE), Government of India, the Registrar, Central Agricultural University, Lamphelpat, Imphal West, Manipur and the Dean, College of Fisheries, Central Agricultural University, Lembucherra, West Tripura District, but none of the complainant signed in the complaint petition. One Dr. Prasenjit Pal, Assistant Professor of the College of Fisheries, Central Agricultural University, Lembucherra, West Tripura put his signature on the complaint petition and in the affidavit filed in support of the complaint petition, he has stated that he has been duly authorized by the complainants to swear the affidavit, but nowhere in the complaint petition it is mentioned that he was authorized to file the complaint petition on behalf of the complainants. We are of the prima facie opinion that the complaint petition was not filed fulfilling the terms mentioned in Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. However, as the respondent-opposite parties did not raise any question either before the learned District Forum or before this Commission we are not expressing any opinion in this regard.
13. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 07.11.2017 wherein it is mentioned that the P.W.1, Prasanjit Pal stated in his evidence that “…………he paid Rs.3,27,964/- after  deduction of bill amount immediately after installation where the defects arises within the period of warranty  but after filing of the case cameras were repaired but 4 were not working. He admitted Rs.39,248/- remained pending for non restoration of CC TV camera system.” In his cross-examination, the P.W.1 also stated that the four numbers of cameras at distance level were not working. Out of them, value of one camera was Rs.32,500/- and value of other three cameras was Rs.2,750/- each.

In the impugned judgment, the learned District Forum took note of the value of the cameras and held that according to the witness Dr. Prasenjit Pal, the total value of the faulty cameras is Rs.41,000/- out of which Rs.39,248/- was not paid. Payment of that amount should not be made and the petitioner-complainants will get back Rs.3,000/- as 4 cameras were not working. It was further held that due to the negligence of the opposite parties-firm, the petitioner-complainants suffered. So, the petitioner-complainants is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service along with cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/-. In total, the petitioner-complainants is entitled to get Rs.56,000/-.

According to us, the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Forum is just and proper and as such, no interference is called for. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.