Date of filing : 13-01-2016
Date of order : 31-03-2016
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRE SSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.25/2015
Dated this, the 31st day of March 2016
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Principal, : Complainant
Aliya Senior Secondary School,
Paravanadukkam.Po, Kasaragod. Dt. 671317
(Adv. Faizal.P, Calicut)
1 M/s Educomp Solutions Ltd, 1211 : Opposite parties
Padma Tower-1,5 Rajendra Palace, New Delhi. 110008.
2 M/s. Edu Smart Services Private Limited, L-74,
Mahipalpur Extention, New Delhi. 110037.
(Ops 1 & 2 Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The gist of the complainants case is that the complainant is the Principal of the Aliya Senior Secondary School which is affiliated to CBSE and opposite parties are private companies doing business of providing smart Class Programmes in schools. In the month of March 2011, the representatives of the opposite parties approached the complainant and offered implementation of smart class services to the school. Opposite parties further offered to provide innovative solution to critical problems relating to quality of education and Access to education for all and e-education. Attracted with the assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant with the consent of school Management committee after consolation with the parents decided to avail the service of opposite parties and entered end into a Tripartite agreement dated 15-06-2011 as opposite party No.1 is party A, complainant is party B and opposite party No.2 is party C and fixed the terms as 60 months from the date of completion of installation.
The consideration for the smart class programme was in 3 heads i.e for sale of hardware Rs.15,16,226/-, for licensing of content Rs.16,51,774/- and for support service in relation to smart class program Rs.10,56,000/- all these payments were scheduled to 20 instalments covering 60 months. As per sub clause 4 to 14 of clause 3 parting ‘B’ that is the complainant had made all arrangements and necessary modifications to the class rooms and extended all support from their side to party C for implementing the programmes. The complainant herein was paying the scheduled amount as agreed in the agreement. But by July 2012 the opposite parties failed to fulfill the terms of the obligation cast upon them as per agreement. The opposite parties did not maintain the service and hardware in working condition. The entire programmes became ineffective. By July 2012 opposite party completely failed to provide proper service and timely replacement of hardware. Complainant on several times sent intimations and request to opposite parties to attend the issues and to rectify the problems. On the other hand the opposite parties caused to sent a lawyer notice demanding Rs.31,64,485/- from the complainant. Thereafter the representative of the opposite parties contacted the complainant over phone expressing apology and assuring solution to the issues, but nobody approached for rectification of the defects. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the complaint.
2. The notice to both opposite parties were sent from the Forum was neither served not returned even after 5 months and hence both of them were set exparte as per the presumption U/s. 28.A of the C.P.Act.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and Exts A1 to A6 were marked from his side. We analyzed the evidence before the Forum and perused the documents carefully.
The main allegation of the complainant was that he being the Principal of the Aliya Senior Secondary School, entered in a Tripartite Agreement with the opposite parties herein as per assurance of the opposite parties for implementation of smart Class Service to the school. As per the agreement dated 15-06-2011 the terms of the agreement was for 60 months from the date of completion of installation. The true copy of the agreement is marked as Ext.A1. As per clause 3 of the agreement, obligation of parties were 3 fold (1) installing hardware in the school premise, (2) providing hard disc (3) Support service i.e, appointing training and deploying full time smart class resource co-ordinater for smart class programme.
4. As per clause 4 to 14 of clause 3, party B had to make arrangements for the implementation of smart class programme, and accordingly the complainant made all arrangements and necessary modification to the class rooms and extended all support to party C for implementing the smart class programme expending considerable amounts. The complainant was paying the scheduled amount as agreed in the agreement. But by July 2012 the opposite parties failed to fulfill the terms of the obligations cost upon them as per the agreement. The programme became ineffective and good for nothing. Nothing was benefitted by the pupil. The entire . smart class programme rendered inoperative on account of dereliction of opposite parties which resulted in great loss to the pupil.
5. By July 2012 the opposite parties completely failed to provide proper service and to ensure timely replacement of hardware. On failure of prompt service, was updating of repositories and non replacement of defective and non-working units of hardware, the complainant constrained to withhold the payments and informed the opposite party to replace the damaged hardware components over phone and by E-mail dated 4-6-14 is marked as Ext.A2. Opposite parties sent an E-mail reply apologizing for the inconvenience on the same day and the same is marked as Ext.A3. But the defects were not rectified. In the meantime after opposite parties had taken back the server machine, 3 CPUS and 2 projections and on 6-7-2012 and on 20-1-2014, the PW1 sent letters to the opposite parties which were marked as Exts A4 & A5 respectively. Desprite all these intimations and requests, the opposite parties failed to attend the issues and to rectify the problems. On the other hand, opposite party caused to sent a registered lawyer notice demanding Rs.31,64,485/- from the complainant. Thereafter eventhough the representative of opposite parties contacted the PW1 and expressed their apology and assured solution to the issues were unattended. Despite of the issuance of any notices opposite parties have not taken any steps to redress the grievance of the complainant. The notice sent by the opposite parties by demanding an amount of Rs.31,64,485/- from PW1 is marked as Ext.A6.
6. Due to the supply of these defective hardware and repositories in relation to smart clause programme and deficiency in rendering support services the complainant suffered huge loss and damages. The academic standard of the pupils were at risk. The entire programmes was unworthy and useless. The pupils and the parents suffered great mental agony and strain. The complainant already paid Rs.4,21,900/- to the opposite party.
7. The PW1 used to collect free from the pupils from the maintenance of the institution and day to day administration which is not with a profit motive.
8. There is no contra evidence adduced by the opposite parties herein and all the allegations of the complainant is proved by him beyond doubt and the complainant is entitled for a relief. The law laid down in St.Alloysius College V. Harsharaj Gatty’s case that opposite party did not provided necessary software to update syllabus and did not supplied software and also failed to conduct necessary training programme to teachers to perform smart class programme to students as promised and thereby the complainant suffered which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In the present case also we are accepting the same view held by Hon’ble National Consumer Redressal Commission.
In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs. 4,21,900/- with 10% interest from the date of filing the complaint till realization with a compensation of Rs.50,000/-and Rs.5000/- as cost. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Copy of Agreement.
A2.Copy of Gmail
A3.Copy of G mail
A4.6-7-2013 letter sent by complainant to Manojkumar, Regional Head, Educomp Solutions Pvt.Ltd
A5. 20-1-2014 letter sent by complainant to opposite party
A6. 11-2-2014 Copy of lawyer notice.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
