Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/27/2016

Smt Syeda Sami ara Begaum - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory,M/s Mexus Education Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.P.S.Sathyanarayana Rao

23 Mar 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:18.04.2016

DISPOSED      ON:24.03.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 27/2016

 

DATED:  23^rd MARCH 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT	Smt. Syeda Sami Ara Begum, The Secretary, Crescent Education Society (Red.,), Crescent English Medium School, Near Venkateshwara Talkies, Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	The Authorized Signatory, M/s Mexus Education Pvt. Ltd., Survey No.153/2/A, Muktanand Marg, Orla, VAPI, Gujaratg-396 191.   (Rep by Sri .B.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.93,000/- paid by the complainant for digital class program, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and pain  with cost of Rs.30,000/- and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, it is running the educational institution for non-profit purpose and for imparting education since last 18 years.  It has 450 students with 18 full time facilities classes ranging from LKG to 10^th Standard.  It is further submitted that, in order to improve the system of imparting education system in school by way of digital class rooms/smart class with an innovative facilities of learning science and other subjects by testing out scientific theories in a practical space with experiments and problem solving and project based activities being the crux of learning through the smart classes, complainant approached the OP and the OP gave an assurance of carrying out the above said smart class program.  On 11.11.2011 an agreement entered into between the complainant and OP for a period of twelve months tiled as Agreement for Right to Use the Copyright Assets and Service Agreement.  According to the OP the same is replicated in their standard agreement that, it has developed and extends rights to use of certain Educational contents known as “Iken School” and provides services.  The same was supposed to commence from the month of December 2012 but, it commenced from the month of January 2012.  OP insisted the agreement for 5 years terms but, the complainant insisted for one year and then extend the services if they found satisfactory.  Complainant has pad Rs.15,000/- to the OP for first quarter by way of DD No.031312 dated 14.02.2011, the same was supposed to made on quarterly basis.  As per the agreement OP was duty bound to provide the services to the complainant by sending experts, providing training to the teachers in implementing the above said program, installation of the required devices in the school such as Video Projector, installation of software, white board and other allied instruments and for smooth functioning.  OP took six months’ time from the date of installation to function in all full pledged manner, the complainant co-operated the same as it was new technology altogether.  As per the agreement dated 11.11.2011, OP has to provide SMS Inventory for School Library which includes Curriculum based learning, skill polish, Personality Development, Business Oriented lessons, Technology learning etc., Career Chart board/Flex; IKEN learning Lab sets, ILL set shall comprise of Concept stimulators (IKEN Joy) Iken Board for Class 6-9 science, Iken Books of Explore Science, Iken Book Amber series and JC series, Iken Maths Books, Iken Pro DVDs, Zing Book including set of Iken Talking Pen starter Pace.  Initially OP gave short training to the teachers and expected to operate the same.  The systems placed by the OP to conduct the digital classes never able to function properly since inception but, the OP gave lame excuse and every time it brought time for effective functioning of the program of digital classes. Complainant has paid Rs.15,000/- once in three months.  From 11.12.2011 to 28.02.2015, the complainant has paid money to OP.  Initially complainant paid Rs.15,000/- as advance for installation, Rs.3,300/- as service charges and Rs.75,000/- in five installments, in all the complainant has paid Rs.93,300/- to OP.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has provided sub-standard electronic equipments required for digital classes such as e-projector, Desktop, White Board and sound systems but, they never functioned properly since beginning.  There is a defects in VGA splitter, projector not working satisfactorily, non-working of Iken library software, windows not working properly after formatting by the technical men of OP and library supporting files not supporting.  The same was communicated to the OP about the deficiency on its part but, OP never replied to the same.  Complainant asked the OP to take back all the equipments and to refund the amount paid but, there is no reply on the part of OP.  The agreement with the OP was entered in the premises of complainant’s School which is in Chitradurga and the services of OP was terminated by complainant on 27.02.2015 due to deficiency of services.  Therefore, prayed for allowing the complaint.  

 3.    On service of notice, OP appeared through                    Sri. B. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate and filed version denying the entire averments made in the complaint.  It is submitted by the OP that, the agreement entered into between complainant and OP on 11.11.2011.  As per the agreement, the OP Company supplied, installed and provide all the services to the complainant’s school but, complainant has not co-operated and paid the amount as per the agreement dated 11.11.2011 and as such there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.  As per the recitals of the agreement in para No.7.1, the matters covered under the agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction Courts at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra.  As such, the present complaint is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.  OP is a reputed company and popular organization providing services to the reputed companies and having goodwill allover India.  The complainant is not acted upon the terms and conditions of the agreement.  The complainant filed this complaint only to harass and to grab the money from the OP and therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-9 were got marked. On behalf of OP one Sri.Shashi Kumar, Floating Mexus Export has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 documents has been got marked.   

5.     Arguments of both sides heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, complainant is running the educational institution for non-profit purpose and for imparting education since last 18 years having 450 students with 18 full time facilities.  In order to improve the system of imparting education system by way of digital class rooms/smart class with an innovative facilities of learning science and other subjects by testing out scientific theories in a practical space with experiments and problem solving and project based activities being the crux of learning through the smart classes, complainant approached the OP.  The OP gave an assurance of carrying out the above said smart class program.  On 11.11.2011 an agreement entered into between the complainant and OP for a period of twelve months tiled as Agreement for Right to Use the Copyright Assets and Service Agreement, the same is replicated in their standard agreement that, it has developed and extends rights to use of certain Educational contents known as “Iken School” and provides services.  The same was supposed to commence from the month of December 2012 but, it commenced from the month of January 2012.  OP insisted the agreement for 5 years terms but, the complainant insisted for one year.  Complainant has pad Rs.15,000/- to the OP for first quarter by way of DD No.031312 dated 14.02.2011.  As per the agreement, the duty of the OP was to provide the services to the complainant by sending experts, providing training to the teachers in implementing the above said program, installation of the required devices in the school such as Video Projector, installation of software, white board and other allied instruments and for smooth functioning.  OP took six months’ time from the date of installation to function in all full pledged manner, the complainant co-operated the same as it was new technology altogether.  As per the agreement dated 11.11.2011, OP has to provide SMS Inventory for School Library which includes Curriculum based learning, skill polish, Personality Development, Business Oriented lessons, Technology learning etc., Career Chart board/Flex; IKEN learning Lab sets, ILL set shall comprise of Concept stimulators (IKEN Joy) Iken Board for Class 6-9 science, Iken Books of Explore Science, Iken Book Amber series and JC series, Iken Maths Books, Iken Pro DVDs, Zing Book including set of Iken Talking Pen starter Pace.  Initially OP gave short training to the teachers and expected to operate the same.  The systems placed by the OP to conduct the digital classes never able to function properly since inception but, the OP gave lame excuse and every time it brought time for effective functioning of the program of digital classes. Complainant has paid Rs.15,000/- once in three months.  From 11.12.2011 to 28.02.2015, the complainant has paid money to OP.  Initially complainant paid Rs.15,000/- as advance for installation, Rs.3,300/- as service charges and Rs.75,000/- in five installments, in all the complainant has paid Rs.93,300/- to OP.  The complainant has provided sub-standard electronic equipments required for digital classes such as e-projector, Desktop, White Board and sound systems but, they never functioned properly since beginning.  There is a defects in VGA splitter, projector not working satisfactorily, non-working of Iken library software, windows not working properly after formatting by the technical men of OP and library supporting files not supporting.  The same was communicated to the OP about the deficiency on its part but, OP never replied to the same.  Complainant asked the OP to take back all the equipments and to refund the amount paid but, there is no reply on the part of OP.  The agreement with the OP was entered in the premises of complainant’s School which is in Chitradurga and the services of OP was terminated by complainant on 27.02.2015 due to deficiency of services.  

 9.    In support of her contention, the complainant has filed her affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on documents like Customer Call reports marked as Ex.A-1 to A-8 and agreement dated 11.11.2011 marked as Ex.A-9.

10.   On the other hand, it is argued by the OPs that, as per the agreement dated 11.11.2011, the OP Company supplied, installed and provide all the services to the complainant’s school but, complainant has not co-operated and paid the amount as per the agreement dated 11.11.2011 and as such there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.  As per the recitals of the agreement in para No.7.1, the matters covered under the agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction Courts at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra.  As such, the present complaint is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.  OP is a reputed company and popular organization providing services to the reputed companies and having goodwill allover India.  The complainant is not acted upon the terms and conditions of the agreement.  The complainant filed this complaint only to harass and to grab the money from the OP.

11.   In support of its contention, the OP has filed affidavit evidence of its Floating Mexus Export Sri. Shashi Kumar and reiterated the contents of version and relied on document like letter of Authorization given by the OP marked as Ex.B-1.

12.   On hearing the rival contentions of both parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out from the Ex.A-1 to A-8, the customer call reports and agreement dated 11.11.2011 Ex.A-9 along with payment schedules, the complainant entered into an agreement with the OP to provide services by supplying equipments.  As per payment schedule, the complainant has paid four installments of Rs.15,000/- each in all Rs.60,000/-.  Initially OP gave short training to the teachers and expected to operate the same.  The systems placed by the OP to conduct the digital classes never able to function properly since inception but, the OP gave lame excuses and every time it brought time for effective functioning of the program of digital classes. Complainant has paid Rs.15,000/- once in three months.  From 11.12.2011 to 28.02.2015, the complainant has paid money to OP.  The OP has provided sub-standard electronic equipments and they never functioned properly since beginning.  The same was communicated to the OP about the deficiency on its part but, OP never replied to the same.  Complainant asked the OP to take back all the equipments and to refund the amount paid but, there is no reply on the part of OP.  There is a defects in VGA splitter, projector not working satisfactorily, non-working of Iken library software, windows not working properly after formatting by the technical men of OP and library supporting files not supporting.  The same was communicated to the OP about the deficiency on its part but, OP never replied to the same. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

          13.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

It is ordered that, the above complaint filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of C.P. Act is hereby allowed in part.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

It is further directed the OP is directed to pay                   Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 23/03/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. Shashikumar by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1 to 8:-	Customer Call reports
02	Ex-A-9:-	Agreement dated 11.11.2011

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01

Ex-B-1:-

Authorization letter

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**