A tripartite agreement has been executed between M/s Educomp solutional Limited, New Delhi represented by Mr.Rohit Malik (VP) and Abdul Kalam Primary School, Mangalore, Tq: yelaburga, Dist: Koppal represented by its Head Master and M/s Edu Smart Services Private Limited, New Delhi represented by Mr.Pramod Thatoi (Director) on 09-12-2011, under which the OP has agreed that Educlass Interactive be set up in the designated class room within the specified premises belonging to the complainant school in accordance with terms and conditions specified in the agreement on consideration provided in Condition No.5 of the agreement.  The installation of educlass interactive was completed on 23-1-2012.  The end of users license agreement for digital component educlass interactive module is licensed to the lincensee for limited use of imparting education as per the agreement.  The agreement grants licensee the right to access and use the digital content for imparting education to its students, provided the licensee complywith all the terms and conditions of the principal agreement, which provides for sale of hardware.  Annexure-A2 provides for payment of hardware in quarterly basis.  Aneexure-B provides for consideration for Content Licenses.  According to which, Rs.1,20,718/- is payable.  Annexure-C provides for consideration for Provision of Support Services.  Annexure-E discloses that four post dates for Rs.55,000/- has been issued by the school.  A sum of Rs.5,000/- has been paid in cash on 09-12-2011 as per cheque No.674471 drawn on Pragathi Gramin Bank, Mangalore.

            2.  On 31-08-2012, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP Company, which reads as follows;

“I hereby request for the above matter that cancel The Educlass Service because it is Rural Area Here the Problem of Power Supply.  So it is not convincing to our school time properly our school syllabus is state syllabus in Kannada Medium yours Educlass Curriculum is not setting our school children’s Mentality since the parents are not ready to pay the Educlass fee and Our teachers also could not understating your’s Educlass curriculum.  So it is not properly communicative with us Please I kindly request you as soon as possible you cancel our school Educlass Agreement.”

            3.  On 12-09-2012, the Head Master wrote another letter to the OP Company, which reads as follows;

“I hereby request for the above matter that cancel The Educlass Service because it is Rural Area Here the Problem of Power Supply.  So it is not convincing to our school time properly our school syllabus is state syllabus in Kannada Medium yours Educlass Curriculum is not setting our school children’s Mentality since the parents are not ready to pay the Educlass fee and Our teachers also could not understating your’s Educlass curriculum.  So it is not properly communicative with us Please I kindly request you as soon as possible you cancel our school Educlass Agreement.”

            4.  On 03-07-2013, The Head Master wrote another letter to the OP, which reads as follows;

            Regarding the matter I requested H.M of Abdul Kalam School At Post: Mangalore Taluk : Yelaburga Dist: Koppal Already we had a agreement your company so you have not been responding properly your servicing not available us.  Although we had through the Writtenly cancellation about your agreement Many time.  But you have not response till now.  So it is to much bored us.  Already we have stopped your D.G. Class on August 30, 2012 about this matter we have informed you writtenly although you have not responsed.

             Out Institution has lot of loss by your D.G. Class Because of your carelessness of servicing it is too torchered us.  Although if you careless cancellation of our D.G. Class in case of we are not responsed.  Upcoming future issues.

5.  On October 28, 2014, the OP Company sent a notice to the School, which reads as under;

            6.  This complaint was filed on 08-12-2014 by the Head Master of the school seeking for compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- on various counts on the ground that failure on the part of the OP company for not cancelling the agreement is a deficiency in service.

            7.  Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986, ‘ deficiency; means – any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any other service.

            8.  In the instant case, there is no complaint about the fault or imperfection or inadequacy in the quality and nature or manner of performance, which is required to be maintained by the OP Company in accordance with the terms of the contract in relation to the service agreed to be provided by the service provider.  Therefore, this is a false and frivolous complaint to overcome the notice of demand for payment of money by the OP Company, which is due to be paid by the complainant.  The complaint is without merit.

            9.  Condition No. 6.1 and 6.2 in the agreement reads as follows;

            6.  TERMINATION

“6.1  The term of this Agreement shall conclude on 31^st day of
           MAY month of 2017 year or 60 months from the date of the
          installation, which ever is later.

6.2  Party B cannot terminate the contract before it expires by
         efflux of time, and Party B is bound to pay the installments
        for the complete term of this Agreement for Interactive
        Module hardware and for provision of the Digital Content.”

            10.  As such, it is not permissible for the complainant to terminate the contract as agreed upon and claim deficiency in service.

            11.  Based on the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.