KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 114/2018

JUDGMENT DATED: 01.03.2019

(Against the order in C.C. 290/2013 of CDRF, Malappuram)

PRESENT : 

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

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                 : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

          Co-ordinator, IT @ School, Civil Station, Malappuram, Pin-676 505.

           (By Adv. Meena. C.R)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Sujatha. C, V.H.M.H.S.S Morayur P.O, Malappuram residing at Sopanam (Neerngatt House), Melmuri 27 P.O, Pin-676 517.

2. Manager, R.P. Infosystems Pvt. Ltd., Aysha Tower, 43/2614, K & K 5 Sastha Temple Road, Kaloor, Kochi-18.

         (By Adv. M. Unnikrishnan for 2^nd respondent)

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

The 1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 290/2013 of the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Malappuram has filed this appeal challenging the Order of the forum directing refund of the sum of Rs. 19,270/- to the complainant with 10% interest per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as cost within one month from the date of receipt of the order to complainant. 

2.  In short, case of the complainant, a school teacher, is that she had purchased a laptop for a consideration of Rs. 19,270/- under “ICT in School Scheme” conducted at IT @ School on 11.05.2011.  The laptop became defective and the matter was intimated to the opposite parties but they were not responded, hence the complainant filed the complaint before the district forum and the forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/1^st opposite party along with 2^nd respondent to pay Rs. 19,270/- being the price of the laptop with 10% interest per annum along with compensation and cost.

3.  In response to notice issued the 1^st opposite party appeared.  But after service 2^nd opposite party remained absent.

4.  On the materials produced by both sides which consisted of the proof affidavit of complainant and Exts. A1 to A3 on her side and counter affidavit filed by the 1^st opposite party, lower forum found that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, passed the impugned order holding that opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant as indicated.  Aggrieved by that Order appellant/1^st opposite party has preferred the present appeal.

5.  We heard the counsel for appellant and respondent and perused the records.  In this appeal the appellant alleges that the complainant had purchased the laptop from the 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 19,270/- which is more than the amount mentioned in the circular dated 17.01.2011.  As such this was the clear violation of the clauses of the circular issued by the government.  The appellant further contended that the appellant IT @ School only introduced a beneficial scheme enabling the teachers to purchase laptop/netbook at lower rates.  It is the option of the teachers to purchase the laptop/netbooks.  They purchased the laptop directly from the 2^nd opposite party, company upon their own choice.    The appellant further submitted that the sole responsibility to rectify the defects or replace the laptop should have been vested with the 2^nd opposite party as it was they who had received the consideration and had guaranteed to repair the product. 

6.  Perusing the circular produced by the 1^st 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 1^st opposite party with reference to circular was called for to determine whether it had joint liability with the 2^nd 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 select and collect laptops from the companies directly paying the price.  Evidently the 1^st opposite party has only co-ordinated 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 1^st opposite party. But their role is limited to implementation of the project as stipulated under the 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 1^st opposite party for the reason it has co-ordinated the implementation of the project is unsustainable.  The 2^nd opposite party, manufacturer has not resisted the claim of the complainant.  The liability to compensate the complainant as ordered by the lower forum vested only with the 2^nd opposite party/manufacturer.  Order passed fixing joint liability on the appellant/1^st 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 its application. 

Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 

                          JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

jb                                                                                 BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER