IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of November 2021
Filed on: 12.10.2020
PRESENT:
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C.No.307/2020
Complainants :
1. Shahulhameed M.S., S/o. Late Saidmuhameed, Maliyackal House, Nochima, Kombara, NAD P.O., Aluva, Ernakulam, Kerala, Pin-683 563
2. Ameesha M Sha (9th Standard), Minor, D/o.Shahulhameed M.S., Maliyackal House, Nochima, Kombara, NAD P.O., Aluva, Ernakulam, Kerala, Pin-683 563. Rep. by her guardian Shahulhameed M.S.
3. Muhammad Ayaan (5th Standard), Minor, S/o.Shahulhameed M.S, Maliyackal House, Nochima, Kombara, NAD P.O., Aluva, Ernakulam, Kerala, Pin-683 563 Rep. by her guardian Shahulhameed M.S.
(By Adv.R.Raja Raja Varma, RR Varma & Associates,
Advocate & Legal Consultants, 1st Floor, “Gourinandanam”, VRRA-5, Vayanasala Road, Chithrapuzha, Tripunithura, Ernakulam-682 309)
Vs.
Opposite parties :
1. M/s.Extra Mark Education India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office , 506, Surya Krishna Building, 19 Kg Marg., Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory
(Ex-parte)
2. M/s.Extramarks Education India Pvt. Ltd., (Operations and warehouse), B. No.2034A, Sreekala Road, Vennala, Palarivattom, Ernakulam,
Kerala-682 028) Rep by its Office Head/Manager
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
(1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The 1st complainant had taken an Extra Mark Learning Application from the opposite parties for his minor children, the 2nd and the 3rd complainants vide order No.1840/22/06/2020. The price for the app was Rs.16,000/- per year and the price was paid by availing loan from M/s.Bajaj Finserve arranged by the opposite parties. The initial amount of Rs.3,600/- was paid by the 1st complainant directly to the opposite parties by depositing the amount to the bank account of the opposite party operated with on 22.06.2020. The balance amount was arranged by the opposite parties from Bajaj Finserve Ltd as a loan which is to be repaid through EMIs. The complainant submits that the entire amount was paid by the complainants and the opposite parties received the full amount for the application. The 1st complainant is repaying the loan EMI from July 2020 to M/s.Finserve Ltd. Even after remitting the full fees, the complainants were forced to wait for about two weeks to get the Learning application activated in the name of the 2nd and 3rd complainants. When the 2nd and 3rd complainants started to use the application, they realized that they are not getting the benefits as promised by the representatives of the opposite parties. PPT is not available in full screen. The chapters in the syllabus of the 5th class are not accurately available and the matter was informed to the customer service team of the opposite parties. Since the issue is not redressed the matter was informed to the 1st opposite party by a notice dated 25.07.2020 through e-mail, demanding to terminate the agreement and to refund the full amount. The complainant alleges that the present application of the learning App is unable to improve the educational quality of the children. All the problems of the App are happened within the warranty period. The opposite parties are liable to rectify the grievances of the customer but the grievances are not redressed. The said action from the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. By selling a defective product which cannot improve the educational quality of a student/customer amounts to unfair trade practice also.
The above action of the opposite parties caused mental agony, pain and loss of money, and loss of valuable time to the complainant. The 2nd and 3rd complainants are forced to avail alternative source to support their education Id. Hence the complainant approached before the Commission seeking orders to reimburse the amount Rs.16,000/- collected from the complainant with interest and to get a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony, loss and damages suffered by the complainant due to the negligent and deficient action of the opposite parties and to get Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges from the opposite parties.
2) Notice
Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 02.11.2020 and the notice to the 2nd opposite party was served on 05.11.2020 as revealed by proof of delivery from the postal department. The complainant has produced the track record of the 1st opposite party. But the opposite parties neither appeared before the Commission nor filed their version. Consequently, they were set ex-parte and the case was posted for the evidence of the complainant to 01.03.2021.
3) Evidence.
The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documents which were marked as Exbt.A1 (series) A2 and A3 (series). No oral evidence from the side of the complainant. Evidence closed and heard the complainant.
4) Based on the above pleadings, the issues came up for consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether the complainant had to suffer any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the Learning Application?
(iii) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings to the complainant?
5) Issue No. (i)
In this case, the 1st complainant the father of the 2nd and the 3rd complainants taken an Application, Extra Mark Learning Application from the opposite parties for his children. For this purpose, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.3200/- on 22.06.2020 directly to the opposite parties Bank account No.50200014227830 operated with HDFC Bank, vide Exbt.A1 (series). The complainant submits that the total price for the above application was Rs.16000/- per year for both children and the balance amount was arranged by the opposite parties from M/s. Bajaj Finserve as loan which shall be repaid through EMIs as evident from Exbt.A1 series. Exbt.A1 also includes a copy of Bajaj Finserve delivery order. Exbt.A2 is the copy of the email communications between the complainant and the opposite parties about the learning app. As per Exbt.A2 also, it is revealed that the total fee for the App was Rs.16000/- for two students and the initial payment Rs.3,200/- and then Rs.1600x8 months and Bajaj Finserve approved the complainant’s order. Exbt.A3 is also an email communication between the complainant and the opposite party about the details of the App. The opposite party ensures that the App will help
(1) School at Home Progrmme
(2) LDT Pedagogy
(3) Personalized learning and doubt solving by Alex.
(4) Reports and Analytics.
Exbt.A3 includes the letters sent to the opposite party by the complainant asking to refund the amount of Rs.3,200/- and to stop the collection of EMI by Bajaj Finserve Ltd.
We have analysed all the documents submitted by the complainant with respect to the contentions raised by the complainant. The complainant alleges in the complaint that the opposite party had failed to rectify the defect of the disputed Learning application. The complainant submits that the Learning App is fully defective. For example, when a question/doubt is asked in any subject, they are getting an answer which has no relation to that subject/question. The Power Point Presentation is not available in full screen. The complainant also sent an email to the 1st opposite party in the form of a notice dated 25.07.2020 demanding to refund the amount and to terminate the agreement and to issue No Objection Certificate at the earliest. Since the App does not have any of the benefits as promised by the company representatives about the App. The Notice issued to the 2nd opposite party served as revealed by proof of delivery of the postal department. The complainant had produced the track record of the 1st opposite party. As per the track record produced by the complainant the Notice sent to the 1st opposite party was served on 07.11.2020 at 18:18:32. But the opposite parties never appeared before this Commission to contest the case. The case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties even after accepting the notice from this Commission. In the absence of any contrary evidence, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is believable to some extent. But, the complainant has not furnished any opinion of an Expert that the Learning App is not sufficient to improve the educational quality of the complainant’s children as promised by the opposite party. The complainant submits that all the problems of the App happened during the warranty period. But the complainant has not produced the warranty details. The complainant had taken this App on 22.06.2021. The email communication (Notice) sent to the opposite party on 25.07.2021 shows that the App has some software issues and it was too within the warranty period. The opposite party is not interested to rectify the defects of the Learning App and to redress the grievances of the complainant. The above act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service on their part. In these circumstances, the issue is found partly in favour of the complainant.
6) Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii)
The complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and inconvenience due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Considering all the facts stated in the complaint, we fix the compensation amount as Rs.5,000/-. The complainant has to spend his valuable time and money to contest the case. Hence cost of proceedings Rs.2,000/- is allowed.
In the result, we find that the complaint is allowable in part and is accordingly allowed.
1) The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects of the Learning App in full satisfaction of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
2) The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards compensation to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as litigation charges.
3) The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several.
The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 30th day of November 2021.
Sd/- Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Sd/- D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
am
Appendix
Complainant’s Exbts :
Exbt.A1 :: copy of payment slip dated 22.06.2020
Exbt.A2 :: copy of e-mail communications
Exbt.A3 series :: copy of email communication
Opposite party’s Exbts. : Nil
Date of Despatch :;
By hand ::
By Post ::
C.C.No.307/2020
Order dated 23.11.2021
