Date of Filling      :  30.12.2014.

                                                                                            Date of Disposal  :  19.12.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT.  S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                          …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.07/2015

(Dated this Monday the 19^th day of December 2016)

Veltech Dr. RR and Dr. SR Technical University,

Represented by its Registrar

Dr. E. Kannan,

No.42, Avadi - Veltech Road,

Avadi,

Chennai - 600 062.                                                                     … Complainant.

/ Versus /

1.  M/s. ADS Softek Pvt. Ltd.,

     Represented by its Managing Director,

     H. No.2A, Shiva Sadan,

     D.No.2-7-44, SRK Colony,

    West Marredpally,

    Secunderabad - 500 026.

2. Mr. Prasad V. Sivalenka,

    Managing Director,

    ADS Softek Pvt. Ltd.,

    H. No.2A, Shiva Sadan,

    D.No.2-7-44, SRK Colony,

    West Marredpally,

    Secunderabad - 500 026.

3. M.S. Manian,

    Director,

    ADS Softek Pvt. Ltd.,

    H. No.2A, Shiva Sadan,

    D. No.2-7-44, SRK Colony,

    West Marredpally,

    Secunderabad - 500 026.                                                 … Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 18.11.2016 in the presence of M/s. A.R. Poovannan, Counsel for the complainant and M/s. R. Thanjan, Counsel for the 1 to 3 opposite parties and having perused the documents and evidences, written & oral arguments on the side of both sides this Forum delivered the following,

                                                ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1 to 3 opposite parties for seeking Rs.7,00,000/- towards return of the money paid to the opposite parties and Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 24% p.a. on Rs.7,00,000/- from 15.03.2012 until realization.

2.       The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-

The complainant’s institution is a reputed educational institution recognized as VELTECH Dr. RR & Dr. SR TECHNICALL UNIVERSITY in Avadi, which is running various educational institutions including Engineering Colleges, Management and Science, Nursing Colleges, Polytechnic and Schools.  The 1^st opposite party represented by the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties, approached the complainant during December 2010 and informed the complainant that the 1^st opposite party is a MNC company established in the year 2003 in USA and has branches in India, Singapore, Malaysia and Kenya and their purpose is to help colleges take advantages of the numerous academic programs that are widely available and make sure the colleges succeed in implementing those programs.  Further, it was  informed that the 2^nd opposite party has 17 years of IT experience in United States and has credit in managing automation, security for financial extranets for stock markets.  With its experience, the opposite parties claimed to have designed collaborative portals and academic programs.

3.       Further, the opposite parties claimed that they have tie-ups with information technology industry leaders such as Microsoft, Cisco, Infosys, TCS, Wipro, Cognizant, Cap Gemini, IBM etc. and further claimed that they have come up with various academic programmes to help the students community more particularly Engineering College students.  By making such claim, the opposite parties offered to commence Microsoft Innovation Alliance (MIA) Program in the complainant’s institution by providing eco-system in the complainant’s institution.  As required by the opposite parties, the complainant started creating the innovation platform with all amenities in order to facilitate the opposite parties to commence the MIA programme in its institution.  Meanwhile, the starting of programme were announced to the students and they showed interest in joining the course.  Many students were attended the one hour training conducted by M. S.  Manian, the 3^rd opposite party and more than 108 students enrolled for training also.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs.8,42,400/- under invoice no.OS/14/11-12 dated 15.03.2012 and Rs.93,600/- under invoice no.OS/16/11-12 dated 19.03.2012, in all Rs.9,36,000/- after deducting the Tax Deductable at Source, has been paid to the opposite parties for settinlg up the Microsoft Innovation Alliance Programme in campus under PO No.44223 dated 22.07.2011.  The said cost of Rs.9,00,000/- is exclusive of the course-wise charges that would be directly paid by the individual student concerned.  It is pertinent to mention that the opposite parties had nowhere in the initial communication dated 08.12.2010 as well as in the draft memorandum appended therewith there was no condition stipulating requirement of minimum number of students for commencinlg the course.

4.       As per the request made by the complainant, the opposite parties have conducted seminars / awareness programmes in the complainant institution on 12.10.2011, 17.02.2012 and on 05.07.2012.  The 2^nd opposite party participated in the 1^st awareness programme and the 3^rd opposite party participated in the other two awareness programme.  In pursuant to the 2^nd awreness programme, 50 students enrolled themselves for training and in pursuant to the 3^rd awereness programme, 107 students entrolled themselves for training.  That in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the opposite parties, the students who got themselves enrolled for training have lost interest and due to their academic commitments thereafter started, withdrawing their enrollment for the training programme.  The opposite parties miserably failed in executing an agreement/MOU and had also not made Microsoft to execute an agreement with the complainant.  In view of the indifferent attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant was constrained to call off the launching of the training programme and wanted the opposite parties to return the amounts received from the complainant.

5.       The complainant had made numerous emails and had also sent written communications though courier, and called upon the  opposite parties to return the amounts received from the complainant.  However, there was absolutely no response much less positive response from the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to send a registered letter dated 14.052014 through its Legal Officer and called upon the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- out of Rs.9,36,000/- paid by the complainant.  The complainant volunteered to forgo a sum ofRs.2,36,000/- for the reason that the opposite parties have conducted three awareness programmes and had also furnished designs for the innovation platform. In spite of receipt of the notice dated 14.05.2014, the opposite parties have not come forward to return the said sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.  The act of the opposite parties is nothing but deficiency of service and also unethical business practice.  In view of the indifferent action of the opposite parties, the complainant was put to untold hardship irreparable injury, in convenience and embarrassment before its own students’ community.  Hence this complaint.

6.       The contention of written version of the 1 to 3 opposite parties is  briefly as follows:-

The opposite parties deny all the averments made in the complaint except those are specifically admitted herein and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  It is true that the opposite parties had approached the complainant with the aim of training their students and spelt out the infrastructures like space of about 3000-3500 sq. ft. for two different labs, conference rooms and a training room with 12 work stations and two servers loaded with MS Software etc. required for execution of the proposed Innovation centre and carry out the programmes as contained in MOU and proposed as initial charge of Rs.15,00,000/- per year towards consultation charges alone, which is exclusive of Rs.3,000/- per student towards the course fee.  But at the request of the complainant, after negotiation, the consultation charges alone was fixed at Rs.9,36,000/- and after settling the charges  a purchase order no.44223 dated 22.07.2011 was raised on the complainant for the consultation charges, with the specific condition incorporated in the purchase order that this would come into effect from  the date of executing the MOU between the opposite parties and the complainant. Eventhough, executing MOU is mandatory to commence the Innovation Centre, as a gesture of goodwill and keeping in view the reputation of the Institution, the opposite parties conducted awareness programmes on 12.10.2011, 17.02.2012 and on 05.07.2012, with the result 107 students got themselves enrolled into the course.

7.       That has been agreed to mutually to execute the Innovation Centre in the premises of the complainants’ institution and having formally started the course, commencing with awareness programmes on three occasions as above, the MOU which was sent to the complainant as early as 08.12.2012 was not signed by the complainant and a clause was also incorporated in the purchase order dated 22.07.2011 to that effect.  It can be seen from various e-mails from October 2010 exchange of so many communications through e-mails between the parties for execution of MOU for reason best known to the complainants alone and there are also no reasons to show as to why they dragged on signing the MOU and there is lack of co-ordination among the complainant’s side and also their egoistic attitude on the part of authorities concerned in the institution also spoiled commencement of Innovation Centre at the cost of development of their own students, for no fault on the opposite parties.

8.       The opposite parties company was ever prepared to commence the programme as scheduled, provided the mandatory MOU executed, which was not carried out by the complainant despite the opposite party company’s numerous phone calls and emails, particularly after October 2012, excepting Complainant’s registered legal notice dated 14.05.2014, thus a wide gap of nearly two years is sufficient to prove their inaction and also there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.  The MOU was sent to the complainant as early as 08.12.2010, there was not even a word of this from the complainant.  After finalization of the deal, a Purchase order dated 22.07.2011 with a reminder in the PO itself for signing the MOU and till then the complainant has not spelt out their inclination to sign the MOU and disregarded our requests.  Such being the facts, the complainant’s allegation that MOU is dragged on for execution is totally baseless and beyond truth and nothing more.  The complainant is demanding back Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.7,00,000/- as paid to the opposite parties and Rs.3,00,000/-) towards compensation) out of Rs.9,36,000/-.  Notwithstanding the complainant and the opposite parties having concluded and agreed in all aspects including the charges / fees, there is no reason why the complainant should back out from their deal is nothing but a cheating tactics on the part of the complainant, not only against the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9.       In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and documents from Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked.  While so, on the side of the 1 to 3 opposite parties, the proof affidavit is filed and documents from Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked on his side.

10.     At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 1 to 3 opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

11.    Written arguments filed and oral arguments adduced on the side of the opposite party.   Written arguments has been filed and requested to treat the written argument as oral arguments on the side of the complainant.

12.     Point no.1:-

According to the case of the complainant is that, though the opposite parties received a sum of Rs.9,36,000/-, the opposite party had caused inordinate delay in conducting training programme and in view of the inordinate delay, the students started withdrawing their enrollment for the training programme, since the opposite parties miserably failed in executing MOU and therefore, in view of the indifferent attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant was constrained to call off the launching of the training programme and to return the amounts received and in turn the complainant volunteered to forgo a sum of Rs.2,36,000/- for the reason that the opposite parties have conducted three awareness programmes and also furnished designs for the innovation platform and inspite of the letter sent, the opposite parties have not come forward to refund the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- which leads to deficiency of service.

13.     While so, the opposite parties have contended that infact, the opposite parties have already sent a MOU as early as 08.12.2010 through mail and requested the complainant to send a confirmation for conducting the Innovative Programme.  But the complainant neither responded nor executed MOU in token of the acceptance eventhough, the opposite parties have already commenced the programme as scheduled which clearly shows the irresponsible and reckless attitude of the complainant and therefore, there is no inordinate delay on the part of the opposite parties.  The allegations made in the complaint are baseless and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Further, because of the attitude of the complainant, the opposite parties were put to irreparable loss and hardship and the complainant has to pay the compensation as counter claim.     

          14.     At this juncture, it goes without saying that, the duty cast upon the complainant to prove the allegations made against the opposite parties with sufficient evidence.   On careful perusal of the evidence on both sides, there was a contract between the complainant and the opposite parties to conduct Microsoft Innovation Alliance (MIA) in the complainant’s institution by providing eco-system in the complainant’s institution to help the students community more particularly to the  Engineering College students inorder to equip knowledge with information technology and for establishing of innovation platform in the premises of the complainant.   For conducting such innovation programme, they have made E-mail communications between them which are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 were marked are not disputed.  Further, it is learnt that on receipt of the Ex.B1, proposal, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,42,000/- under invoice no.OS/14/11 -12 dated 15.03.2012 and Rs.93,600/- under invoice no.OS/16/11-12 dated 19.03.2012 in all Rs.9,36,000/-  after deducting  the Tax Deducted at Source for setting up the  Microsoft  Innovation Alliance Programme for which E-mail communication along with Tax Invoice with purchase order has been marked as Ex.A7 Series.  In this regard also, there is no dispute at all.

15.     It is further noticed that till date as alleged by both parties for conducting of the said innovation programme, MOU agreement has not been executed is crystal clear.  Furthermore, it is learnt that pending execution of the said MOU agreement between parties, the opposite parties have conducted three awareness programmes on 05.10.2011, 17.12.2012 and 05.07.2012 with a result of 107 students got enrolled into.  It is also fairly admitted by the complainant in his complaint.

16.     At the outset, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is learnt that the opposite parties had caused inordinate delay in conducting the training programme and executing MOU is a mandatory one.  While being so, it is seen from the evidence of both sides, it is not come to light, that who is actually held responsible for the non execution of the said MOU agreement for further steps.  It is crystal clear that though the contract starts in the year December 2010 for the above said innovation programme and pending for progress nearly for four years.  In the mean time, there is so many E-mail communication between them.  There is no fruitful decision has taken on the part of either side for the execution of MOU which resulted in failure for the conducting of the training programme which clearly enlighten the irresponsibility of both sides.   Further, from the above context, it is crystal clear that there is fault on both sides for non execution of MOU which resulted in failure for conducting the training programme not only for non conduct of the programme, but  also it could not equip the students as aspired and assurance given by the complainant’s institution.  Therefore, it is learnt that there is a sheer negligence on the part of both parties which spoil the career of the students.

17.     In the light of above facts and circumstances, this Forum concludes that though the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties have not been proved properly with required evidence but the receipt of the amount of Rs.9,36,000/- has been clearly admitted by the opposite parties and the complainant had deducted Rs.2,36,000/- for the expenses of conducting the three innovative programme by the opposite parties. Hence the remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/- has to be refund to the complainant by the opposite parties is a reasonable one.  Thus point no.1 is answered accordingly.

18.     Point no.2:-

As per the decision arrived in point no.1, the complainant is entitled only for the refund of Rs.7,00,000/- as prayed in the complaint.  Further, the complainant has issued Ex.A12, letter to the opposite parties for the refund of Rs.7,00,000/- and the same was received by the opposite parties and they have not come forward to refund the said amount in time and not sent proper reply to the complainant till the date of filing of this complaint which leads to unnecessary litigation.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.7,00,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.  Thus, point no.2 is answered accordingly. 

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the 1 to 3 opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to return the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) to the complainant within a month along with the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) totally of Rs.7,10,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and ten thousand only).  Regarding other reliefs, this complaint is dismissed.

The above amounts shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9.5% p.a.  till the date of payment.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 19^th  December 2016.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1 to 3 opposite parties:-

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT