Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/566

district co ordinator, it school - Complainant(s)

Versus

op ragini - Opp.Party(s)

m nizarudeen

05 Sep 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NUMBER 566/14

JUDGMENT DATED ; 05.09.2018

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.220/2013 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram order dated : 29.09.2014)

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT

 

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SRI.RANJIT.R                                          : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

The District Co-Coordinator, IT @ School, Malappuram, Malappuram, Pin – 676 505

 

(By Adv.Sri.M.Nizarudheen & Adv.Smt.Meena)

 

VS

RESPONDENTS

 

1. O.P.Ragini, Souparnika, Thokkampara.P.O, Kottakkal, Malappuram District – 676 503

 

2. Chirag, RP INFOSYSTEMS PVT LTD, Aysha Tower, 43/2614,

K& K 5 Sastha Temple Road, Kaloor, Kochi – 18

JUDMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT

Second opposite party in CC.No.220/2013 of the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram has filed the appeal challenging the Order of the forum directing refund of the price of a laptop, sum of Rs17, 700/-, with interest at 10% per annum from the date of complaint with compensation of Rs 10,000/- to the complainant.

        2.     In response to notice issued the first respondent appeared in person. After service second respondent remained absent.

        3.     In short the case of complainant, a school teacher, is that she had purchased a laptop for a consideration of Rs 17,700/- under   “ Lap Top and Net Book for the Teacher Scheme” conducted at IT @ School on 14.05.2011. The laptop became defective and representations made for curing the defects before the opposite parties were not heeded to was her case to claim compensation of Rs 40,000/. The manufacturer of the laptop, after service, remained absent. Second opposite party resisted the claim contending that it has only facilitated the purchase and use of  laptop by school teachers under a scheme evolved by the Government in terms of Ext.B1 circular. It has no liability to compensate the complainant since the purchase was directly made by complainant from a manufacturer of his choice and, further, even if the laptop was found defective complainant can realize compensation only from the manufacturer.

4.     On the materials produced by both sides which consisted of the testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 on his side and Ext B1 for the second opposite party the lower forum coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency of service by both opposite parties passed the impugned Order holding that both of them are severally to compensate the complainant as indicated. Aggrieved by that order appellant has preferred the present appeal.

        5      We heard the counsel for appellant and perused the records. We notice that the lower forum soley relied on a judgment rendered by this Commission previously in another appeal involving identical matter. No discussion was made over the contentions taken by the appellant herein that it has no liability for the transaction involved, supply of laptop to teachers under a govt scheme. Perusing Ext.B1 circular produced by the second opposite party and also taking note that purchase and distribution of laptop to school teachers was intended to equip them with the skills of information technology we find that a close scrutiny of the contentions raised by the second opposite party with reference to B1 circular was called for to determine whether it had joint liability with the first opposite party manufacturer to compensate the claim made if at all the laptop purchased was found to be defective. Going through the circular we find that the teachers who are covered by the scheme had to collect laptops from the companies who have been and short listed and  selected by the second opposite party directly paying the price . Evidently the second opposite party coordinated the implementation of the scheme with no direct involvement in the transaction. No doubt purchase of laptop under the scheme could be made by teachers only from the manufacturer selected by the second opposite party. But its role is limited to implementation of the project as stipulated under B1 circular. When that be so, it cannot be stated that it has got direct involvement in the purchase and supply of laptops to the teachers who participated in the project. Fixing joint liability on the second opposite party with the first opposite party for the reason it has coordinated the implementation of the project is unsustainable. The first opposite party, manufacturer has not resisted the claim of the complainant. The liability to compensate the applicant as ordered by the lower forum vested only with the first opposite party/ manufacturer. Order passed fixing joint liability on the appellant /second opposite party as well in the complaint by the lower forum shall stand vacated

Appeal is allowed directing refund of the sum deposited by the appellant for entertaining the appeal, on it application.

Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

               

JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN      : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT.R                         : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NUMBER 566/14

JUDGMENT DATED ; 05.09.2018