By Smt.Sheena.V.V., Member:
The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is a registered co-operative society was entered an agreement with the respondent on 21.10.2005 for the development of software programme in the society. The last date for completion of the software installation was 15.12.2005 and final version on 31.12.2005. The charge, mutually agreed and fixed for the development of the software was Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the respondent in two equal instalments. At the time of examining the programme mistakes were noticed and the module were not functioning satisfactorily. The entering of data and the required corrections was being carried out by the employees of the society but not get any satisfactory result. The employees of the opposite party last attended the complainant business place only on 31.03.2007 and 31.05.2007, after that they were not attending to the phone calls. All the data entered by the respondent’s employees were found defective , the respondents office remained closed and there was nobody to attend to the requirements made by the employment. A letter was sent to the respondent stating that facts, but it was returned as undelivered. The complainant was registered a written complaint to the police requesting for amicable settlements. On 26.3.2008 the respondent came to the office and refused to continue the work as per the agreement and they agreed to return the amount. But they never paid till the time. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments of the respondent is that the agreement was signed with M/S Store IT training and Solution Pvt. Ltd. So, this respondent has no personal liability about the allegation. On the basis of the agreement the final version was installed on 31.12.2005 and it was functioning successfully. As per the agreement on the request of the complainant, the employees of M/S Store IT training and Solution Pvt Ltd communicated and extended all necessary services at the complainant’s office and provided all supporting services for effective functioning of the software programme. During all that time, the complainant has not raised any complaints or issues about the installation or defect in the effective performance of the software programme. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and they never agreed to return any amount as alleged in the complaint. Hence dismiss.
3. Points for consideration are that:-
(1) Is there any deficiency in service committed by the respondent.
(2) If so reliefs and costs.
4. Evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1, Exhibits P1 to P13 marked.
5. Points:- The complainant is examined as PW1. Exhibits P1 is the agreement made by the complainant society and respondent company both parties signed it. According to Pw1, the respondent was signed in exhibit document as the designation of M.D and not as CEO. But we could find that the CEO, Mr. Job Jose Manjali was signed in the Exhibit P1 document. So, he is the responsible person to answer about the allegations. Exhibit P2 and P3 documents shown that the respondent had received Rs. 12,500/- on 21.10.2005 as the first instalment and Rs. 12,500/- on 15.12.2005. As per the agreement the full amount Rs.25,000/- charged for the work had been paid by the complainant. According to the respondent he had installed final version on 31/12/05 and it was functioning successfully. Section 4 of Exhibit P1 is the terms of payment ‘the balance will be paid at the time of installation of the trial version of the program’. Moreover the complainant had paid the final instalment on 15/12/05. It depicts that the final version installed by the respondent successfully. But the respondent had provided one year guarantee/warranty against any software mal-functioning. It explains Section 5 of the agreement. But complainant not at all take any action against the respondent or any allegation raised against the respondent within the guarantee/warranty period or within the termination of the agreement.
6. However; the complainant is a consumer of the respondent and the respondent is liable to cure the defects of the software installed by them. The respondent adduced the oral evidence. According to RW1 the shareholders of the company M/s Score IT Training and Solution are the respondent and his father is an old aged man. He is also deposed that he is BA Degree holder. But he could not prove the knowledge about computer or software programming. There is no supporting oral or documentary evidence adduced by the respondent through other witness. The respondent could not prove the efficiency, qualification or experience of the staff about the software developing. So we could find that the respondent has done the work without sufficient experience.
7. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to return Exhibits P2 and P3 amount to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as costs within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 28th day of February 2014.
