BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 40/2012.
THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa, B.A.LLB. MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Dr. Sridhar Reddy S/o. V.P. Bala Reddy, Age: 42
years, Balanku Hospital, Basavan Bhavi Chowk, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- Rakya Technologies Private Ltd., Plot No. 2/1, 21st
Cross, Vijaya Nagar, Vidya Giri, Bagalkot, Represented by its: Chief Executive officer & Director Sri. Chetan Chandra Shekar Patil.
CLAIM : For to direct the opposite to return the amount of
Rs. 50,000/-, which is cost of soft ware programme by taking back of it from this hospital, to pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- with interest and cost.
Date of institution :- 17-05-12.
Notice served :- 12-06-12.
Date of disposal :- 07-12-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. Sateesh.V. Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. P. Nizam Pasha, Advocate.
****
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Dr. Sridhar Reddy against Rakya Technologies Pvt. Ltd., U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to return the part amount of Rs. 50,000/-, paid towards cost of the software program by taking back of it from this hospital, to pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- with interest and cost.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he purchased and got installed Fintal, Piston and Novi software program from opposite by paying Rs. 40,000/- the half of the total price of the software program, after installation by opposite it not worked properly, thereafter, again complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- to opposites for repair, even then opposite not able to rectify the defects in the software program and it is not ready to return the amount paid by him, in spite of several requests and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service.
3. Opposite Rakya Technology appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed written version by denying the allegations of complainant, it contended that, complainant has purchased the said software for commercial purpose. Hence, this forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter. Further it is contended that, it is the duty of the complainant to maintain and manage the resource of this unit. Complainant himself is in the habit of formatting the software for which it is very difficult for opposite to assist and to attend his problems, there is civil dispute pending before the civil judge court at Bagalkot for recovery of balance consideration amount of the unit. Accordingly, it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, he purchased and got installed Fintal, Piston and Novi software program from opposite by paying an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as the half price of the total price of the unit and after installation it not properly working, he paid Rs. 10,000/- as the cost of repair, even then opposite not able to rectify the defects of the said software program and he is not ready to return the amount paid by him in spite of several requests and thereby, opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In negative ( It is a premature complaint).
(2) In negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1.The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of opposite doctor was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9 are marked.
7. We have gone through the entire case of complainant and the case of opposite with their respective evidences and documents.
8. It is the specific contention of the complainant that, he paid Rs. 40,000/- which is the half price of the software program thereafter, he paid another Rs. 10,000/- for to repair it.
9. Opposite company contended that, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale entered in between the complainant and opposite company, complainant still has to pay balance consideration of Rs. 68,432/- with interest to opposite. Hence, it filed a civil suit for recovery of the balance consideration amount before the learned civil Judge at Bagalkot and it is still pending. Other allegations are specifically denied.
10. By looking into the fact of pendency of civil suit before the learned civil judge at Bagalkot filed by this opposite for balance consideration amount of Rs. 68,432/, we cannot say that, now at this stage that, the complainant has fully complied with terms and conditions of the agreement. Civil court is competent court to say, whether complainant has paid full consideration amount or still he is balance of Rs. 68,432/-. In the circumstances stated above, the disputed facts of deficiency in service as alleged in this complaint are to be decided by this Forum only after disposal of the civil court. Non installation of the software program properly or not whether it is working properly or not are the factors to be decided by detail enquiry. The claim made by the opposite before the learned civil judge Bagalkot, involves these factors, as such, we are of the view that, during pendency of civil suit, it is not proper on our part to express our view with regard to deficiency in service by the opposite. Accordingly, we are of the view that, this complaint is a premature complaint. Accordingly we answered Point No-1.
POINT NO.2:-
11. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint Accordingly, we answered Point No-2 in negative.
POINT NO.3:-
12. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
This complaint is dismissed as it is a premature complaint.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 07-12-12).
Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
