Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/735

CO ORDINATOR IT SCHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

FATHIMA SUHRA ODAKKAL - Opp.Party(s)

M NIZARUDHEEN

14 Oct 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO.735/2015 &

 ORDER IN IA.NO.1266/2015 DATED :14.10.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.99/14 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram order dated ; 22.05.2015)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                                :MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS       :MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

The District Office ,

IT @ School, Malappuram,

Malappuram,

Pin – 676505

 

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

 

Vs

RESPONDENTS

 

1.Fathima Suhra Odakkal,

W/o.Ayoob.K.K

Kollarkandi House,

Mongam.P.O

Malappuram – 673 642

 

2.RP 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 - 700069

 

2

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

            This appeal is preferred by the first opposite party in CC.No.99/2014 in the CDRF, Malappuram along with application to condone the delay of 18 days in preferring the appeal. The first respondent complaint is a school teacher working at PMS AM UP School, Olamathil, Malappuram District. It is alleged in the complaint that she purchased a chirag branded laptop from the first opposite party on 14.05.2011 under the Lap top / net book for teachers scheme floated by the appellant for an amount of Rs.17,770/- .But the laptop became defective and useless within the warranty period. Despite notice the opposite parties did not respond. Hence the complaint. The contention raised by the appellant was that they had nothing to do with the sale and service of laptop and no consideration was received by them. The consumer forum rejected the contention of the appellant and allowed the complaint against the appellant as well. Hence the appeal. The additional government pleader who appeared for the appellant was heard at the time of admission of the appeal.

          2.      Admittedly, the appellant had arranged common platform for the supply of laptop to school teachers. That was the direct occasion for the

3

complainant to purchase the laptop. Now, the appellant can not disown responsibility on the contention that no consideration was received by them. The consideration under the consumer protection act need not be monetary. The appellant in all probability floated such a scheme to benefit teachers because that would enhance the competence and quality of teachers. This consideration is sufficient consideration and it is the duty of the appellant also to see that laptops suffering from manufacturing defect are replaced by the company sponsored by them. The appellant cannot shirk their responsibility. Hence there is no error in the order of the consumer forum warranting admission of the appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

A.RADHA                               :MEMBER

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS       :MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

JUDGMENT

 IN

APPEAL NO.735/2015 &

 ORDER

 IN

 IA.NO.1266/2015

DATED :14.10.2015

 

 

                                                                                                            Be/