By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.Case of the complainant
Complainant Institution is one of the towering Educational Institutions since 1975. The School has been achieving 100% success since its inception and the school has a great role to play in moulding a successful generation in the society. On 15/03/2019 an authorised representative of opposite party namely Kevin came to the school and introduced himself as the marketing executive of the “ School Ezy Application“ and he introduced that the above said application will help to improve the performance of the students and teachers of the school as well as to organize educational programmes help desk, seminars and more. Again he said that through this application attendance of the students, daily activities , home work, learning skill , educational status of the students can be conveyed by sending text message to the parents through their mobile numbers. The marketing executive of the opposite party made to impress the complainant by their constant approach to the school and it was agreed by the complainant to install the “School Ezy Application”. Then the marketing executive of the opposite party came up with an agreement at School Complex which was executed and signed by the complainant from the school on January 2019. But the opposite party install the application only on June 2019.
2. Complainant had entered into an agreement only to avail the product with its services promised by opposite party. Clause 2 of the said agreement clearly state that the opposite party shall enable automate admissions, on conduct examinations and admin functions of the school. Clause 3 enables the complainant to communicate the functional points mentioned in clause 2 of the agreement over mobile phone applications and E-mails. But none of the promised services were provided by the opposite party.
3. The initial services of the product provided by the opposite party was not as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Complainant has informed the opposite party with regard to all defects and deficiencies of product through an E-mail dated 17/08/2020 . When such complaints were informed to the opposite party through resource person, the team manager of the opposite party was sent to visit the school only once for looking into the complaints, but the opposite party sent an E-mail dated 13/07/2020 with a false statement that Mr. Kevin who is the representative of the opposite party has visited the school multiple time. Though the services like live classes were enabled from the opposite party, teachers training was not properly organised and fulfilled . Mr. Manu, who is the representative of opposite party, who was personally available on site in that scenario, has well informed this matter to the opposite party and their marketing executive Mr. Kevin. Many of the subscribers of complainant school could not log in through application and finally never skip up application had to be abandoned and zoom platform was used to for live classes. The agreement was signed on January 2019 and it was executed only on June 2019 and the resource person employed by opposite party on site for complainant has created many hassles which affected complainant’s reputation. More than 100 students have left the school which caused a huge financial loss to the complainant. On 19/10/2020 opposite party sent lawyer notice along with a huge bill and on 20/11/2020 complainant had sent a reply notice that no work has been rendered as per the promise of the opposite party and have to waive the amount due as all services promised was not provided.
4. The opposite party sent many E-mails which was unnoticed by the complainant and the same was informed to the opposite party as reply on 17/08/2020. Without giving a proper answer and verbally agreeing to waive the demands of the opposite party made to complainant believe that the demands are waived off and on 19/10/2020, the opposite party sent legal notice alleging that complainant had violated the agreement and there is a due of Rs. 4,39,924/-(Rupees Four lakh thirty nine thousand nine hundred and twenty four only). Complainant already paid an amount of Rs. 1,57,011/-(Rupees One lakh fifty seven thousand and eleven only) to opposite party through cheque No.1011080 and 1011079. Opposite party well aware of the fact that there is no amount due to them in connection with the agreement executed by both parties. More over opposite party has violated clause 2,3, and 28 of the agreement by not providing proper services to the complainant and has caused huge financial loss and merely 101 students changing the school. Hence this complaint.
5. Claim of the complainant is that they are entitled to get Rs. 75,00,000/-(Rupees Seventy five lakh only) for the financial losses caused to the school for students who left the school and Rs. 25,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty five lakh only) or mental agony caused for the staff and Management and also for defaming the reputation of complainant institution.
6. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and notice served on them and they did not turn up. Hence opposite party set exparte.
7. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, they filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents they produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the copy of the lawyer notice which is sent by the opposite party to the complainant on 19/10/2020, Ext.A2 is the copy of the reply notice sent by complainant through Adv. P.T. Joshi on 20/11/2020, Ext.A3 is the Postal receipt and acknowledgment card dated 20/11/2020 , Ext.A4 is the copy of Agreement executed between the complainant institution and opposite party on 15/03/2019.
8. The allegations against opposite party is proved by the unchallenged evidence of complainant. But complainant did not produce documents to prove their case properly. No documents produced before the Commission to show how much money they had given to opposite party. But in the complaint and in Ext.A2 document, complainant mentioned that they had paid Rs. 1,57,011/- to opposite party against cheque No.1011080 and 1011079. More over no documents produced by complainant to prove that there is above 100 students dropped out from the school due to the above acts of opposite party. But there is no contra evidence in this matter. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.
9. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite party is deficient in service.
- The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1,57,011/-(Rupees One lakh fifty seven thousand and eleven only) to complainant, the amount they already paid to opposite party.
- The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite party also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 1st day of February, 2022.
