Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/670

STATE PROJECT OFFICE IT SCHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROSHINI P JAMES - Opp.Party(s)

M NIZHARUDHEEN

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.670/2015

JUDGMENT DATED : 06.11.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.327/13 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram order dated  25.0.2015)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

 

1. The State Project Officer,

IT @ School Project

Poojappura.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram

 

2. The District Co-ordinator,

IT @ School, Civil Station,

Malappuram

 

 

(By Adv.Sri.M.Nizarudheen, Addl.Govt Pleader)

 

                                                                                                   Vs

RESPONDENTS

 

1.Lal.J.B

S/o.Janardhanan Pillai,

Rohini House,

Kallempadam, Nilambur,

Malappuram  676508

 

2.RP INFOSYSTEMS PVT LTD,

Aysha Tower, 43/2614,

K& K 5 Sastha Temple Road,

Kaloor, Kochi 18

Now functioning at its Corporate office,

4^th Floor, Regent House, 12

Govt place. (East), Kolkata – 700069

 

3. RP INFOSYSTEMS PVT LTD,

Saras Park Inn,

Ground Floor, BTR lane,

Melethampanoor,

Gandharai Ammankovil Road.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram

    

JUDGMENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellants were opposite parties 3 & 4 in CC.No.327/2013 in the CDRF, Malappuram. First respondent was the complainant. She was a teacher at K.H.M.H school, Valakkulam. It is alleged in the complaint that she purchased a chirag brand laptop from opposite party no.1 as per the laptop and netbooks for teachers scheme floated by the appellants for a consideration of Rs.17,770/-. Alleging that the laptop became defective within the warranty period the complainant approached the consumer forum for refund of the price of the laptop and for compensation. Only the appellants entered appearance and filed version. The contention of the appellants was that they had nothing to do with the sale and service of the the laptop. They merely arranged a common platform to facilitate purchase and there was no consideration received by the appellants. The consumer forum after recording evidence passed the impugned order making the appellants liable. The said order of the consumer forum is challenged in this appeal. The learned additional government pleader who appeared for the appellants was heard at the time of admission.

          2.      Admittedly, the appellants have floated a scheme called laptop and netbooks for teacher’s scheme as per which laptops were supplied to school teachers. The first respondent / complainant was one of the school teachers who purchased laptop under the scheme. It is not denied that the laptop became defective within the warranty period. The only contention is that the appellants have not received any consideration and the appellants were not in any way responsible for the service of the laptop. But the appellants have floated a scheme which was the direct occasion for the complainant to purchase the laptop. Then it is for the appellants to effectively implement the scheme. Apparently, the first opposite party has not directly supplied the laptop but only through the regional centre of the appellants. The contention that there is no consideration received by the appellant is also not sustainable as the consideration need not be monetary The scheme was implemented for the benefit of the teachers and in turn the appellants representing the government would get reward in the form of enhanced efficiency of teachers. This is sufficient consideration which makes the appellants also answerable to the deficiency in service. There is no serious issue of fact to be resolved after detailed hearing. Hence it is unnecessary to admit the appeal for hearing. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.670/2015

JUDGMENT DATED  06.11.2015

 

 

                                                                                                   BE/