Karnataka

Kolar

CC/10/2015

CPM School - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Educamp Solutions Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Muniyappa

04 Jun 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 16/03/2015

Date of Order: 04/06/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 04^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 10 OF 2015

CPM School,

Represented by

Dr. M.Raghunath on behalf of

Management, Lakkur-563 160,

Malur Taluk, Kolar District.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. K.M.Muniyappa, Advocate)              ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) M/s. Educamp Solutions

Limited, Rep. by Rohit Mallik, VP.

 

2) M/s. Edu Smart Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by Pramod Thatoi,

1211, Padma Tower-1, 5,

Rajendra Palace,

New Delhi-110 008.

 

(OP-1 & 2 both these Ops have been placed exparte)

                                                                  …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    , PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has sought, relief of issuance of directions to the opponent to furnish and to install the new good quality instrument by awarding compensation cost of Rs.10,00,000/- for loss of income and reputation.  (Initially the complainant had sought other 06 reliefs, however wide Memo dated: 03.06.2015 as submitted by the learned counsel appeared for the complainant the said reliefs have been given up, no need to refer the same). 

02.   The facts in brief:-

The complainant is to contend that, it being a charitable school is to conduct classes from LKG to 10 standard in the rural area at rented building since 2003.  And that the same being located at Lakkur Village, Malur Taluk in Kolar District, this institution is a unit of charitable trust “Sri Lakshmi Devi Puttaiah Memorial Trust”.

(a)    Further it is contended that, OP-1 and 2 provide and install educational solutions i.e., e-educational aides which would allow technology to be brought in to the classroom.  So as to enable the teacher to supplement classroom education with well researched digital curriculum modules that can be projected through hardware teacher only in the class room, under the name and style of ‘Smart Class’.

(b)    And that, the Ops in the month of November-2011 came, on their own to the institution and offered installation of ‘Smart Class’ program.  And that, as a result, on 26.11.2011 Tripartite Agreement for 60 months came in to being and that the Ops were accordingly under obligation to provide repository of digital curriculum, support, services and consumables.  And that, the Ops were even under obligation to deploy Smart Class resource coordinator to ensure the equipments provided being in good condition.  And that Ops failed in the process.  It is also contended that, the Ops were paid periodically the sums as per the cheques as mentioned below:-

a. 15.12.2011 Rs.20,000/- vide cheque No.616090

b. 06.07.2012 Rs.45,300/- vide cheque No.444106

c. 19.06.2012 Rs.05,700/- vide cheque No.691367

d. 06.12.2012 Rs.54,699/- vide cheque No.691375

e. 31.12.2012 Rs.11,400/- vide cheque No.444122

f. 28.02.2012 Rs.60,000/- vide cheque No.691378

g. 02.03.2013 Rs.60,000/- vide cheque No.691384

h. 17.05.2013 Rs.17,000/- vide cheque No.691360

        Thus the total sum would come to Rs.2,74,099/-

(c)    Further it is contended that, the OP-2 had installed low quality China made three projectors.  And that since beginning the said equipment could not work properly.  Further it is also contended that, as per customer call report dated: 08.02.2012 vide report No.494065, 01.06.2013 vide report No.430628 and 13.06.2013 vide report No.494154, the Ops had taken all the hardware for service/replacement. 

(d)    It is also contended that, on account of the said development the strength of the students came to be decreased from 500 to 369.  And that, in spite of the said development the Ops on 02.12.2014 got issued notice which came to be replied on 05.12.2014.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint seeking the above reliefs.

 

03.   On case being registered the notices came to be registered to the Ops through RPAD giving returnable date as on 20.04.2015.  It is worth to note that, awaiting return of the notices case came to be adjourned on 24.04.2015, 28.04.2015 and on 05.05.2015.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted Memo along with online particulars issued by the Postal Department to indicate that, the Ops were served with the said notices as long back as 04.04.2015.  As the Ops had continued to remain absent on 24.04.2015, 28.04.2015 and then on 05.05.2015 this Forum placed them exparte. 

 

04.   On 19.05.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted affidavit evidence of the complainant with five documents.  On 27.05.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted written arguments.  On 03.06.2015 heard the oral arguments as advance by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

 

05.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

 1. Whether the equipments sold and furnished by way of installation in the said premises of the complainant were defective besides being the connected service rendered deficient?

 2. If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 3. What order?

 

06.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT -1:-   In the Affirmative.

 

POINT -2:-   The complainant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest @ 6% pa from 16.03.2015 being the date of the compliant till realization for being recovered from the OP-1 & 2 jointly and severally.

 

POINT -3:-   As per final order for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINTS - 1 & 2:-

07.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a) Along with the complaint on 16.03.2015 the following documents have been submitted:-

(i) Xerox copy of Tripartite Agreement

(ii) Statement of bank account regarding payment

(iii) Reply notice dated: 05.12.2014

(iv) Final Notice dated: 03.03.2015

(v) Customer call report dated: 08.02.2012 vide report No.494065, 01.06.2013 vide report No.430628 & 13.06.2013 vide report No.494154.

It is also wroth to note that along with the affidavit evidence of the complainant the very same documents have been submitted, and hence there is repetition of submissions these documents are concerned.

(a)    For the reasons noted above, as the Ops have been placed exparte, the averments made in the complaint together with said documents and the affidavit evidence of the complainant if remained unopposed.  So we have no hesitation to hold that, averments made in the complaint stood proved. 

(b)    Even otherwise we have gone in detail, those five documents are concerned.  As per the first document it is bound to be held that on 26.11.2011 Tripartite Agreement came in to being at said village for which the OP-1, the complainant and the OP-2 were parties.  The second document would reveal that as contended the payments were made by the complainant to the OP-1 and thus both these Ops were in receipt of the said sum of Rs.2,74,099/-.  Third document is Office copies of the reply given to the OP.1 & 2.  The fifth document consists of three parts being customer call reports show the status as pending with regard to the accepted assignment as on 03.02.2013, 01.06.2013 and 01.06.2013 respectively.  These shows that the said equipments sold and supplied were defective and consequently the service rendered in installation of the same, on the part of the OP.1 & 2 was deficient.  So undoubtedly the complainant is entitled to get back the said sum of Rs.2,74,099/-. 

(c)    We have taken the said sum to the round figure of Rs.2,74,000/-.  For no fault of the complainant these Ops have made this institution to suffer.  Therefore looking to the circumstances and also bearing in mind that the complainant being a charitable institution suffered set back a lot we quantify the compensation as a sum of Rs.3,26,000/-.  Thus the complainant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 16.03.2015 being the date of the complaint, till realization “for to be recovered from OP-1 & 2 jointly and severally.  Hence the findings.

 

POINT -3:-

09.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons this complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,500/- as we are under

(a) The complainant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 16.03.2015 being the date of submission of the complaint till realization, for to be recovered from the OP-1 & 2 jointly and severally.