D.O.F. 02.07.2011 D.O.O. 31.07.2012 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this the 31st day of July, 2012. C.C.No.207/2011 1. E.K. Ramakrishnan, Advocate, Nr. BEMLP School, Payyannur, 2. K. Gopakumar, Advocate, : Complainant Nr. Tennis Court, Kannur-2. (Both rep. by Adv. M. Hareendran) 1. K.M. Geevarghese, Proprietor, Supreme Law Infotech (Supreme Court & High Court Law Reporter) Opp. Market road bust stop, : Opposite Parties Nr.High Court, Cochin-31. 2. Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 3A, BQ Market, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi – 110088, India O R D E R Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund an amount of `12,000 along with `25,000 as compensation and cost. The case of the complainant is that the 1st opposite party approached them with a software system named “Supreme Today” introduced as a CD ROM covering the Data base from 1960 till 2009. The cost of the software would come `15,300 and has given a concession and agreed to sell the software for `12,000. As attracted by this offer complainants handed over an amount of `6,000 each on 18.01.2009 for which a bill has been issued to 1st complainant and on the very same day a post dated cheque No.42384 for `6,000 has been collected from 2nd complainant and a total amount of `12,000 was collected from both. Subsequently a software was installed in the computer system of both the complainant’s. A password was also given. It was represented that the package is for the life time and to renew the software at any point of time. Both the complainant’s enjoyed the facilities till the end of June, 2009. Abruptly the facilities was stopped intimating that the software was not renewed and the complainants would be able to enjoy the facility in future only if it is renewed. At the time of introducing the system the 1st opposite party has not mentioned anything about the renewal of software. After the abrupt end of facility both the complainants contacted 1st opposite party and they assured that he will immediately revive the software after contacting 2nd opposite party. When the complainant’s contacted the office of the 2nd opposite party at Delhi, it was told that the system will be reviving only on payment of renewal charges. The brochure states about the full package and nothing mention about the renewal charge. Eventhough the complainants contacted both opposite parties on several times for revive of soft ware, nothing has been done so far and both the parties are accusing each other for the reasons best known to them. The complainants had spent substantial amount for purchase of software. They paid the amount under the expectation that they could enjoy the system till life time. The 1st opposite party also represented that it is life time offer. At last complainants realized that their grievances will be redressed only through the Forum. Hence this complaint. The 2nd opposite party received notice issued by the Forum. 1st opposite party also served through substitute service. Eventhough proper notice was served upon opposite parties they remains absent and hence they are called absent and set exparty. The question to be decided in this case is whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties. In order to prove the case complainants have filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced documents such as receipt dated 18.01.09 issued by 2nd opposite party, visiting card of 1st opposite party and paper publication. The chief affidavit filed along with the Ext.A1 and A2 proves the case of the complainants that they have purchased a legal data base software and the first complainant has given `6000 on 18.01.09. The 2nd complainant also contended he has given 6000 by way of cheque and hence the opposite parties were collected altogether `12,000 as cost of the software. According to the complainants the package is for lifetime and renew the software at any point of time and they enjoyed the facility till June, 2009. But according to the complainants the 1st opposite party were stopped the facility intimating that the software was not renewed, but at the time of introducing system, the 1st opposite party has not mentioned anything about the renewal of the same. But eventhough proper notice was served upon the opposite parties they have not turned up before the Forum and to submit their version. This itself is unfair practice and deficient service on the part of opposite party. Moreover there is no contra evidence or pleadings before us. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainants by refunding the value of software `12,000 along with `3000 as compensation and cost and order passed accordingly. In the result the complaint allowed directing the opposite parties to refund `12,000(Rupees Twelve Thousand only) the value of software along with `3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost and compensation within 30 days of receipt of the notice, failing which the complainants are entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Dated this the 31st day of July, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- President Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Bill dated 18.01.2009. A2. Visiting card of 1st OP. A3. Advertisement published in Newspaper. Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Witness examined for the complainant Nil Witness examined for opposite party Nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT | 
