BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 226/2011 Filed on 06.07.2011

Dated : 31.10.2011

Complainant :

St. Peters School, Kadayiruppu, Kolenchery, 682 311, Ernakulam, represented by its Secretary, C.V. Jacob, St. Peters Education Trust, Kadayiruppu, Kolenchery, 682 311, Ernakulam.

(By adv. K. Santhosh Kumar)

Opposite parties :

1. M/s Dimensions Innovations (P) Ltd., 112, Nila, Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director.

    

2. Ashish Srivastava, Chief Executive Officer, M/s Dimensions Innovations (P) Ltd., 112, Nila, Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 18.10.2011, the Forum on 31.10.2011 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

Facts of the case are the following : Complainant is an English Medium Residential School with a co-educational programme from Kindergarten to Plus-2. The 1^st opposite party is a Software Development Company and they offered to implement Campus Automation System in the complainant school and the said offer was accepted by the complainant school and accordingly the complainant entered into an agreement with opposite parties for implementation of Campus Automation System on 02.07.2008. The 2^nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1^st opposite party. The opposite parties agreed to commissioning the software within a period of 100 working days from the date of purchase order for a total amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-. As per the agreement the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the opposite parties, as 30%, along with the purchase order dated 02.07.2008. The complainant further agreed to pay 20% at the time of implementation of core modules and balance 50% at the time of the software installation and commissioning. The opposite parties agreed to install its campus products in three phases. Subsequent to the agreement, the 2^nd opposite party completed a system study for the specified modules. But even after extended period of the 1^st phase of the agreement, the opposite parties did not come forward to install the software. On every occasion, the complainant demanded the opposite parties to complete the work within the period of 100 working days as mentioned in the agreement. After the reminders the opposite parties implemented Admission Register, Academic Management, Examination Management and Fees modules. On 04.03.2009 the complainant again sent reminder to the opposite parties in respect of delay in completing phase 2 and 3. The complainant again and again sent reminders to the opposite parties for commissioning the software as earlier as possible. But the opposite parties failed to perform their promises and committed deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

1^st opposite party in spite of acceptance of notice from this Forum has not filed any version nor appeared before this Forum to contest the matter. As the opposite parties have not filed version, they remain ex-parte.

The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P13 on their part. Complainant has not been cross examined. Hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.

The issues that arise for consideration are:-

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

Points (i) & (ii):- The Software Development Agreement which has been marked as Ext. P1 reveals the details of the agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties on 02.07.2008. As per the agreement the duration of the project and such other details are mentioned. Payment terms are also mentioned in Ext. P1. As per Ext. P1 opposite party has agreed to deliver the phase-I gap analysis document within 25 working days from the date of issue of purchase order and phase-II within 40 working days from the approval of gap analysis document and phase-III within 20 working days. Opposite party has agreed that their team shall install the software in full while St. Peter's Management shall provide necessary assistance and ensure availability of Dimensions specified hardware system, supporting software and networking environment for smooth transition. That upon completion of the project, Dimensions shall provide St. Peter's one copy of the program in a read only compact disk, for reinstallation if necessary. Now the grievance of the complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party though completed the system study for the specified modules like Admission Management, Academic Management, Examination Management and Fees, other modules like Financial Accounting, HR and Pay Roll, Asset Management, Inventory Management, Hostel Management, Web Port, Building Counseling and Front Office, Library, Transportation Management, Project Management, Academic Store Management and Financial Accounting which was certified by the complainant on 07.10.2008 with additional modules as stock register of musical instrument, sports and games equipments and Lab (Science and Computer) equipments. The opposite parties never came forward to install the software even after extended period of the 1^st phase of the agreement. According to the complainant, though reminders were sent opposite parties never cared to install the same as agreed. On 26.03.2009 the opposite parties were in the process of installing campus automation system software in complainant school. That the modules were Admission Management, Academic Management, Fees and Education Management and the same were accepted by the complainant as installed subject to the conditions. As requested by the opposite parties, the complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 90,000/- to the opposite parties on 09.06.2009 and the receipt of the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties. The complainant fulfilled their entire obligations under the agreement and an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been paid to the opposite parties. Complainant has further pleaded that as agreed between the parties the complainant had paid 50% of the total cost of the work in two installments of Rs. 1,35,000/- and Rs. 90,000/-, but the work has not been completed and that by not commissioning the software as agreed and promised by the opposite parties in the complainant school, the opposite parties have committed gross deficiency in service.

We have gone through the records produced by the complainant. As per Ext. P6 it is seen that the complainant has issued a letter on 04.03.2009 to the opposite parties informing them regarding the delay in completing phase II and III, where it has been mentioned that even after the expiry of 100 working days from 07.10.2008 the opposite party is still dealing with 4 of the 16 modules and that this is unacceptable as it is against the deadlines which stand seriously tampered with on account of the default on the part of the opposite parties. Ext. P7 is the reply seen sent to the same wherein the opposite party has stated that System Requirement Specification document is considered most sacrosanct and all the development happens based on that. That once SRS document is created it is reviewed by users and development is done based on it and users are supposed to accept the system based on what they provided in SRS and that taking more requirements after the system has been designed and built, it is much more difficult and requires more efforts on the part of the opposite parties and that it has been further stated that “I hope you understand the reason behind such delays and support us in completing this project successfully so that your esteemed organization benefits”. Further as per Ext. P11 it has been admitted by the opposite parties that they would be able to complete the implementation process by 14.09.2010 which will include (1) Data porting for Admission and Library modules. Students and Library books data to be provided by school, (2) Integration of Fees and accounts module with Fee module, (3) Incorporating feedback received during the current visit (From 28^th July) and (4) Training for Budget and Academic Stores modules. The complainant has informed the opposite party on 21.03.2011 regarding the present status of the school software vide Ext. P12. As per the same it has been informed by the complainant to the opposite party that “Assistant through the net and telephone are of no use. All the modules are experiencing working errors. The following is the present status of School system provided from your esteemed company.

1. Accounts still has working errors.

2. Library needs rescheduling of students strength.

3. Admission & academic needs rescheduling with on site support of Dimension.

4. Fees module needs rescheduling of students strength. Petty Cash option is not complete.

5. H.R & Payroll has working errors and need support from Dimension.

6. Payroll has no provision to ESI (new requirement)

7. Examination should be according to the old CBSE rule.

8. Store module is not completed.

9. Reports of all modules are not working properly.

10. Reschedule the procedures of whole program.

11. Wants all modules master entry support with Dimension.

12. Rights & Privileges will be provided to all staff with the help of staff officers and Dimension.

So please give us a full support and correct the above requests as early as possible. We would also mention that only 65% of you obligations have been fulfilled as of now. Please remember it is a contract of 2008 which should have been installed and fully operational within 100 working days from the date of the contract”. Ext. P13 is the letter sent to the opposite party to fulfill the entire obligations in accordance with the agreement within 15 days from the date of Ext. P13 and further more in Ext. P13 it has been mentioned that the opposite party has accepted Rs. 2,25,000/- from the complainant. Opposite parties never came before this Forum to deny the allegations levelled against them. As PW1 has not been cross examined his sworn statement also stands unchallenged. In the light of the above we find that the act of the opposite parties in not completing the work as per the agreement amounts to gross deficiency in service on their part for which the complainant has to be compensated. The difficulties faced by such an institution like the complainant has to be looked into for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate the same. There is no denial from the part of the opposite parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 2,25,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 3,000/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of complaint i.e; 06.07.2011.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of October 2011.

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 226/2011

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - C.V. Jacob

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Software Development Agreement between complainant and

the opposite party on 02.07.2008.

P2 - Copy of letter dated 02.07.2008

P3 - Copy of letter dated 07.10.2008

P4 - Copy of letter dated 02.01.2009.

P5 - Copy of certificate dated 22.01.2009

P6 - Copy of letter dated 04.03.2009

P7 - Copy of e-mail reply.

P8 - Copy of letter dated 06.03.2009

P9 - Copy of letter dated 26.03.2009

P10 - Copy of letter dated 19.06.2010

P11 - Copy of e-mail reply dated 31.07.2010

P12 - Copy of letter dated 21.03.2011

P13 - Copy of letter dated 27.05.2011

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb