KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 596/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 31.10.2022
(Against the Order in C.C. 259/2015 of CDRF, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- M/s Educomp Solutions Ltd. 1211, Padma Tower-1,5, Rajendra Palace, New Delhi-110 008 represented by its Managing Director.
- M/s Edu Smart Services Pvt. Ltd., L-74, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi-110 037 represented by its Managing Director.
(By Advs. B.S. Suresh Kumar & S.M. Rajeevan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M.E.S. Central School, Thirunavaya, Malappuram-676 301 represented by the Secretary/Manager, Mr.Ummen Gurukkal C.K.
(By Advs. Shyam Padman &S. Reghukumar)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
The opposite parties in C.C. No. 259/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (District Forum for short) are in appeal, challenging the final order dated 25.04.2016, allowing the complaint. As per the order appealed against, the appellants have been directed to return an amount of Rs. 8,92,590/-to the complainant. A further amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation towards the loss and hardships caused to the school along with an amount of Rs. 10,000/-as costs. If the amounts are not paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, it has been held that the amounts would carry interest @ 9% also. The respondent herein is the complainant.
2. The respondent is a school run by the Muslim Education Society. The same is an institution with high reputation, imparting quality education to the students. Pursuant to the proposal of the Government of Kerala through IT @ School Project to set up Smart Class Rooms in every school, the respondent decided to install multimedia aids of learning for students. On the basis of the assurances and promises made by the representatives of the appellants, on 30.11.2011 an agreement was executed between the respondent and the appellants by which, they agreed to provide the necessary educational materials which included both hardware and software to facilitate better learning and understanding of the subject by utilizing information technology and multimedia technology.
3. The installation of the project was commenced in the school on 01.06.2012. In the month of July and December an amount of Rs. 7,65,000/- and Rs. 1,27,590/- were paid by the respondent to each of the appellants. However, the scheme of the appellants was an utter failure for which the Head of the Institutions expressed their apologies to the complainant. Though they promised to rectify the defects, they did not do so. All the problems and difficulties faced by the school were communicated to the appellants both orally and through mail. Thereafter, on 01.12.2014 the respondent received a notice from the appellants through their lawyer. Immediately the respondent issued a reply to the same. Thereafter, the complaint was filed before the District Forum complaining of the deficiency in service committed by the appellants.
4. The District Forum admitted the complaint and ordered notices to the appellants. Though they received notices, they did not appear or file their versions in the complaint. Therefore, they were set ex-parte. The respondent filed chief affidavit, produced and marked Exts. A1 to A14 documents.
5. The District Forum considered the evidence on record and finding that deficiency in service on the part of the appellants had been established, ordered return of the amounts paid and awarded compensation for the loss and hardships caused to the school.
6. According to the counsel for the appellants, the order of the District Forum has been passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellants to place and prove their case. It is submitted that they have a substantial case to place before the District Forum, which requires to be considered on the merits. It was solely due to the non-co-operation of the respondent that the machine had not worked properly as expected. Therefore they seek a further opportunity to file their version and contest the matter.
7. Their contentions are opposed by the counsel for the respondent placing reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757. In view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court, it is contended that this appeal is only to be dismissed.
8. Heard. It is not in dispute that, no version was filed by the appellants in the complaint before the District Forum. According to them no notices were served on them by the District Forum. However, in the order appealed against the District Forum has stated in paragraph 5 that notices were issued to the appellants. There is no material or evidence on record to find that the said statement in the order was wrong. Therefore we proceed on the basis that notices were actually served on the appellants as stated in the order of the District Forum. Since notice was served, it was necessary for the appellants to have filed their version within the statutory time limit.
9. In the event of their omission to do so, the proper course for the District Forum to adopt was to proceed with the matter after setting them ex-parte. The dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decision, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is to the said effect. It is the said procedure that has been followed by the District Forum in this case. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.
For the above reasons, we find no merits in this appeal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
jb
