By Sri. K. Mohammed Ali, President,
Facts in brief:
1. The complainant is a school teacher attached to K.H.M.H. School, Valakkulam, who purchased a Chirag branded LapTop from opposite party No.3 under the LapTop and Netbook for the teachers' Scheme conducted by I.T. @ School, paying Rs.17,770/- as the price. Within warranty period the LapTop became defective. When the matter was informed to the opposite parties, they did not respond. Hence this complaint.
2. The Notice issued from this forum was served to the opposite parties. But opposite party No.1 and 2 did not appear and so the case c against them was set exparte. Opposite party No.4 was impleaded as supplemental opposite party. Opposite party No.3 and 4 filed version admitting the purchase. But it is contented that they have nothing to do with the sale and service of the LapTop. They have only arranged a common platform for the short listed companies and the teachers, to provide LapTop for cheaper price as a facilitator without any remuneration. So they are not deficient in service.
4. The main question that arises for our consideration is as follows:-
(i) Whether the opposite parties are deficient in service.
(ii) Relief if any.
5. Points No.(i) & (ii):-
In order to substantiate the claim of the complainant, he has produced and marked the documents as Ext.A1 to A5, which includes the Order Booking Form, Tax invoice, Complaint Registration Chirag LapTop, minimum specification and Terms and conditions. Ext.A1, ie., Order Booking Form discloses the fact that the booking itself was done through the opposite party No.3. The wording is thus "I hereby place an order for 1 No. Chirag Branded LAPTOPS & NET BOOKS with Model No.14022 under the LapTop/Netbooks for teacher scheme conducted by I.T. @ school". The equipment was purchased from the office of the I.T. @ School, Malappuram Circle. Even though the opposite party No.3 and 4 claims that they have no responsibility about the financial transaction and they have only played the role of a facilitator, the documents produced by the complainant shows, that the very scheme was conducted by opposite party No.3 and 4.
6. His Lordship Justice Sri. P.Q.Barkath Ali, the Hon'ble President of the State Commission in F.A. No. A/13/617, in the Judgment dated, 31-03-2014 in which the opposite party No.3 is the appellants as follows: "The main contention of the appellant is that their duty is to give a common platform for the short listed companies and teachers who intent to buy LapTops/NetBooks and they have no responsibility for any other matter including that of any financial transactions or selection of any particular brand of equipments to teachers and that appellants are only the facilitators. There is no substance in the above contention. The LapTops are admittedly supplied under LapTops and Netbooks for teacher Scheme conducted by the appellants. So it was at their instigation, the complainant has purchased the LapTops. Therefore the appellants cannot now contend that they have nothing to do with the supply of the LapTop to the complainant.”
7. More than fifty cases were pending in this Forum against the same opposite parties filed by teachers from various schools of the District, regarding the supply of defective LapTops, to the teachers.
8. The opposite party No.3 and 4 filed a document, which is marked as ext.B1. This is a Circular issued by the opposite party No.3. Three years warranty was assured to the complainant at the time of purchase by Ext.A4. But within a short period of five months, the LapTop became fully defective and useless. Both sides have filed affidavits as part of the evidence.
9. In a similar case pending in this forum ie., C.C. No.283/13, filed by another teacher, against the same opposite parties, a document was produced and marked by the complainant therein, we were surprised to read that document, which is the Minutes of the meeting of the technical committee of the I.T. @ School held on 05-01-2011 at Thiruvananthapuram. The heading of one chapter to "ഐ.ടി. അറ്റ് സ്കൂളിനു ലഭിച്ച നിരക്ക് തത്തുല്യമായ നിരക്ക്". It is stated that even though the price of the LapTop in the open market is Rs.28,000/- the I.T. @ School made it available for the teachers, for a cheaper price of Rs.17,770/-.
10. On perusal of the evidence on records and affidavits, this forum came to the conclusion that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the loss of the complainant.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed and we order that the opposite party No.1, 2, 3 and 4 shall pay and refund the sum of Rs.17,770/-(Rupees Seventeen thousand, seven hundred and seventy only) to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment, along with Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation towards the mental agony and loss sustained by the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Dated this 25th day of March, 2015.
K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant :
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5
Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Order Booking Form dated, 09-02-2011 for Rs.1,500/-
from first opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Tax Invoice dated, 09-05-2011 first opposite party
to complainant.
Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the Gmail – Complaint Registration Chirag LapTop.
Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the Annexure-1 – Minimum specification LapTop/Netbook.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1
Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the Circular dated, 19-01-2011 by third opposite party.
K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
