By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complaint herein is a school, represented by its administrator. The complainant had decided to incorporate information technology and multimedia for the students which was a project recommended by the state government of Kerala through IT @school. The opposite party made vide advertisement of their service and product and impressed by the same the complainant herein entrusted the project with the opposite party and for that an agreement was executed between the parties.
2. As per the agreement the opposite parties had agreed to provide educational material which includes hardware and software to facilitate better learning and understating of the subject by utilizing information technology and multimedia. There were so many conditions enclosed for improving the quality of the education / teaching to the students. The complainant herein submits that though the smart class rooms were installed it had several defects than its advantages.
3. The opposite parties failed to provide the services and quality as offered by them, and the entered terms and conditions were violated by the opposite parties, it was not properly conducted and the complainant had faced much criticism by the students in general and also from the PTA, Staff council and executive committee of management. The complainant had invested huge amount for quality education to students but was futile.
4. During 2013 June the hardware supplied by the company became defective regarding two class rooms out of 6 provided. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party. But there was no response from the side of opposite parties. The complainant caused email messages also on 22/10/2013. Thereafter on 26/12/2013 the complainant issued reminder to the opposite parties but the reply was to pay Rs.17,75,000/- to the opposite parties. Due to the act of the opposite party’s complainant lost faith in opposite parties regarding there product and services. Thereafter the opposite party issued demand notice to the complainant for huge amount. The complainant submitted the opposite parties failed to provide necessary and adequate service to the complainant as per the agreement and so this complaint is filed to redress the grievance.
5. The Consumer Forum issued notices to the opposite parties and they remained absent and so set them exparte.
6. Considering the entire averments in the complaint and affidavit and on perusal of the documents the District Forum passed an order on 18/11/2015. Aggrieved by the order the opposite party filed an appeal before the state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as Appeal No.279/2016 and the same was disposed by the Hon’ble State Commission on 24/10/2019. As per the order the complaint was remanded for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the appellants to file version and to adduce evidence if any. Thereafter on receipt of records the District Forum issued notice to opposite parties in the address provided in the complaint as well as in the order of Hon’ble State Commission. But the notices issued to the opposite parties stands returned unserved stating as “left “. Thereafter providing several chances to the opposite parties they neither appeared nor filed version or affidavit. Hence they set exparte again. Now it can be seen that despite getting sufficient opportunities as per the order of Hon’ble State Commissions the opposite parties totally failed to represent their case. The notices issued to them stands returned as left. Hence what is to be inferred by the act of opposite party is by filing the appeal and getting a reasonable period they are trying to escape from the clutches of law. Now there is no contra evidence against the contention of the complainant. The complaint stands proved the affidavit and documents. Hence we allow the complaint as follows:-
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.12,00,000/- (Twelve thousand only) jointly and severally to the complainant on account of loss and hardships sustained by the complainant’s school including the students.
- The opposite parties shall further pay cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) to the complainant.
The opposite parties are directed comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation and cost will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
Dated this 27th day of July, 2022.
Mohandasan . K, President
PreethiSivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A10
Ext.A1: Brochure
Ext.A2 : Copy of the agreement furnished to the complainant.
Ext A3 : Letter regarding shifting of signage/exhibition board.
Ext A4 : E-mail attaching the request to stop the service issued by the complaint to the opposite parties
Ext A5 : Reminder letter issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ext.A6 : Reply issued by the opposite party.
Ext.A7 : Reply issued by the complainant,
Ext A8 : Letter issued by the opposite parties regarding alleged agreement with HCL Infosystems.
Ext A9 : Lawyer notice issued on behalf of the opposite parties.
Ext A10 : Reply notice issued on behalf of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Ext.C1 : Commission report.
Mohandasan . K, President
PreethiSivaraman.C, Member
VPH Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
