DATE OF FILING : 31.07.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 03.03.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 06.03.2017.
HERITAGE ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL,
Being represented by its Rector Viz,Soumya Sadhan Bose,
Situated at 69, Gopal Banerjee Lane,Ramkrishnapur,
Howrah,
PIN 711 101. ….………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
- The Vice President,
M/S, Educomp Solutions Limited.,
1211, Padama Tower, 1,5, Rajendra Palace,
New Delhi 110008
at 11A/D, East Topsia Garg House Road,
Kolkata 700 046
- The President, M/S Edu Smart Services Limited.
WZ 931, a/2, Street no. 14A/2, Sandh Nagar,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi 110045
- The Branch Manager,
Corporation Bank
506, Ground floor, Near Vivek Vihar,
G.T. Road (South)
Howrah 711 101…………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, Heritage Academy High School, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p.nos 1 and 2 to refund Rs. 8,54,865.65p1, to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainant, being an educational institute, entered into a tripartite agreement vide Agreement dt 30/09/2010 th O.P.nos1 and 2 to avail the service of computer education for their students for the successful implementation of the smart class programme under certain terms and conditions. And on request of the O.P.no1, complainant paid Rs. 8,54,865.65p to O.P.nos 1 and 2 by a cheque dt. 12/02/2013 on 08/02/2013 for the period of 01/03/2013 to 28/02/2014. The said cheque was also encashed by the O.P.nos 1 and 2 through O.P.no 3 in due course. But it is alleged by the complainant that o.p no 2 provided computer education service to their students only for three months. Thereafter they stopped their all services for which complaints started coming from the students as well as from the parents of the students. So, the complainant requested the Co-ordinator of O.P.no1 to continue their classes but O.P.s did not pay any heed to that request. Accordingly, complainant lodged a written complainant on 12/02/2014 to the said Co-ordinator who assured them that problem would be solved very soon . But no fruitful result came out. Being aggrieved, complainant was compelled to terminate the Agreement on 20/02/2014 with a request to return the amount of Rs. 8,54,865.65p paid by them. But O.P.s did not take any positive step. So, on 24/03/2014, complainant sent one letter to O.P.s with the same request but the complainant did not get back their amount till date. So, being frustrated and alleging deficiency in service , complainant filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notices were served. The O.P.nos 1 and 2 appeared and filed w/v . Accordingly, case was heard on contest against O.P.s1 and 2 and exparte against O.P.no3.
- Two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and its annexures, w/v of O.P.s and noted their contents. It is the specific plea of O.P.nos 1 and 2 that complainant is not a consumer as it is running a school for commercial purpose. And any dispute between them arising out of the Agreement dt 30/09/2010, should be referred to an Arbitrator vide clause 9.1 of that said Agreement dt. 30/09/2010. O.P.s have also mentioned some reported judgements. We do have regard and respect towards these citations. At the same time we have to keep in mind that the complainant is an educational institute and it entered into the said agreement with the O.P. nos 1 and 2 for providing computer education to its students which is considered to be a very important subject in today’s academic course. Complainant has also paid a very big amount of Rs. 8,54,865.65p to the O.P.nos 1 and 2 on 08/02/2013 but did not get the fruits of such high payment. Complainant paid such a huge amount for the benefit of its students. Out of such payment it did not aimed at earning a profit. So, it can never be said that complainant made such a payment for commercial gain. Moreover, as per Section 3 of the C.P.Act, 1986( as amended upto date), complainant can ,very well ,come before a consumer Forum if there be any deficiency in service . O.P.s1 and 2 should have remembered the purpose of such a big payment made by the complainant. They should have been far more careful in their duties. It is accepted by the O.P.nos 1 and 2 that they received an amount of Rs. 8,54, 865.65p vide cheque dt. 12/02/2013 from the complainant. And upto 08/02/2013 ,o.p nos 1 and 2 received different amounts through different cheques on different dates from the complainant. So, they received such a big amount from the complainant, they were bound to provide the required smart classes to the students of the complaint. That they did not do. They were grossly negligent in discharging their duties which is nothing but deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice. Complainant had to face tremendous problem which is very well understood by us. O.P. may not be able to provide the service as per the Agreement ,then they should have returned the said amount. They accepted such amount not only to install the hard wares but it also includes the payments for taking required classes to the students of the complainant. By not doing so, O.P. caused a total damage to the reputation of the complainant which also caused severe mental, financial, and physical harassment to the complainant for which we have nothing but to hold O.P. nos 1 and 2 liable and responsible. Accordingly, the petition of complainant succeeds. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 426 of 2014 ( HDF 426 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest against O.P. nos 1 and 2 with costs and dismissed exparte without cost against O.P.no3 .
That the O.P. nos 1 and 2 are directed jointly and severally to refund Rs. 8,54,865.65p to the complainant within 30 days from this order i.d the amount shall carry an interest @ 8%p.a till actual payment.
That the o.ps are further directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost which they must pay within 30 days from this order i.d the entire amount of Rs. 40,000/- shall carry an interest @ 8% p.a till actual payment.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
