By Smt. Mini Mathew, Member
Facts in brief:-
1. The complainant is a School Teacher working at S.A.L..P. School, Elayoor, Areacode, Malappuram District who purchased a Laptop manufactured by Wipro Info Tech Company Ltd. with serial No.11CFTB00101128 on 10-05-2011 under the Laptop/Netbook for teachers Scheme conducted by State Project Office, I.T. @ School Project, Poojappura (PO), Thiruvananthapuram-12 after paying an amount of Rs.17,770/- as the price of the Laptop. After purchasing of the Laptop, within few days itself it became defective and informed the matter to the company and one technician came to the house of the complainant and collect the Laptop for correcting the defects. They returned the Laptop after some months after curing the defects. But the same defect remains after service. After that on 25-07-2013 (within the warranty period) one technician named Joshy from Nilambur had been to the house of the complainant and has taken the Laptop for repair, but not yet returned to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
2. Notice issued from this Forum was served to opposite party No.1, 3 and 4. They appeared before this Forum and filed their version. Notice issued from this Forum to opposite party No.2 is returned with an endorsement “left”. As per the version filed by opposite party No.1, they have no direct knowledge with regard to the sale and service of the Laptop. According to opposite party No.1, the complainant has not contacted this opposite party with respect to the said alleged defects of his Laptop at any point of time, has not received any service request or complaint from the complainant herein. The opposite party No.1 is not aware of any person named Joshy from Nilambur and has not authorised any one to collect the Laptop on its behalf. Opposite party No.1 further alleges that, the complainant has not filed any service request for the alleged defect in the Laptop and no service request has been registered with respect to the above said Laptop. In short, as per the version filed by opposite party No.1, they are not liable pay any amount to the complainant because there is no deficiency in service on their part.
3. Opposite party No.3 and 4 filed their version and counter affidavit. Through the version and counter affidavit opposite party No.3 and 4 admitting the purchase. But it was contended 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 supply Laptop for cheaper price without accepting any remuneration. They have no responsibility regarding the financial matter. It is the duty of the complainant to select the proper company for supply of the Laptop and ensure the after sale service. The opposite party No.3 and 4 have no consumer relationship with the complainant. The sole duty of the opposite party No.3 and 4 was to bring those in need of Laptop into a common platform as a mere facilitator. The Executive Director I.T. @ School has issued a Circular No. ITS/2011/1402 in which all terms and conditions were explained in detail. So opposite party No.3 and 4 are not deficient in service.
4. The main points that arises for consideration is as follows:-
(i) Whether the opposite parties are deficient in service?
(ii) If so, Relief and cost.
5. Points (i) and (ii):-
In order to substantiate the case of the complainant he has filed affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination and he was cross examined by opposite party No.1. The documents produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A1 to A5. Ext.A2 dated, 09-02-2011 issued by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant by which he had paid Rs.1,500/- as advance. Ext.A1 dated, 10-05-2011 issued by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant by which he had paid Rs.16,270/- to opposite party No.2 towards the balance amount of the Laptop. Ext.A3 is the Tax Invoice dated, 27-04-2011 issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.17,770/-. Ext.A4 is the service card issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant dated, 25-07-2013 and Ext.A5 is the warranty card.
6. Opposite party No.3 and 4 filed Counter Affidavit. Opposite party No.1 has not taken any steps to file their counter affidavit. The main contention of the opposite party No.2 is that they have played the sole of a facilitator without accepting any remuneration from the complainant and they arranged a common platform to the teachers and the companies as a facilitator. They have not induced or instigated the teachers to select a particular brand of Laptop and they have not offered any warranty.
7. But it is to be noted that the entire transaction was initiated by opposite party No.3 and 4. More than 50 cases are pending in this Forum against the same I.T. @ School filed by teachers from various parts of the District. The entire community were cheated by the sweet and attractive words of the opposite parties with regard to quality, standard, grade, model and warranty of the goods. It was a Government undertaking offered low prices and good quality to the teachers. Naturally the teachers were induced and instigated to select goods which are exhibited at the office of the opposite party No.3 and 4. They never expected or apprehended any cheating from a Government agencies.
8. His Lordship Justice Sri. P.Q. Barkath Ali the Hon'ble President of the State Commission, held in F.A. No.13/617 in the Judgment dated, 31-03-2014 in which I.T. @ School is the appellant is as follows:- "The main contention of the appellants is that their duty is to give a common platform for the short listed companies and teachers who intend to buy LapTops/NetBooks and they have no responsibility for any other matter including that of any financial transactions or select any particular brand of equipments to the teachers and that appellants are only facilitators. There is no substance in the above contentions. The LapTops are admittedly supplied under LapTops and Netbooks for the teachers Scheme conducted by the appellants. So it was at their instigation, the complainant has purchased the LapTop. Therefore the appellants cannot now contend that they have nothing to do with the supply of the Laptop to the complainant."
9. The Hon'ble Member of the State Commission Sri. Sharath Chandra Prasad in a similar Judgment, has opined that,t he word remuneration in the Consumer Protection Act, does not confined to monetary remuneration alone. By implementing this scheme by the I.T. @ School, the teachers community will be more qualified technically and that is also a type of remuneration.
10. The complainant conducted the case without the assistance by the legal practitioner. In a similar case ie., C.C.283/13 of this Forum the complainant therein produced the minutes of the meeting of the technical committee of I.T. @ School held on 05-01-2011. We are shocked and surprised to read the page No.1 of the said document which shows the schedule of the bulk purchase of Laptops conducted by I.T. @ School under the caption "ഐ.ടി. അറ്റ് സ്കൂളിനു ലഭിച്ച നിരക്ക് തത്തുല്യമായ നിരക്ക്". Even though the market value of the LapTop is Rs.28,000/- the I.T. @ School made it available for a low price of Rs.17,770/- along with three years warranty. Even though the certified copies of the above said document is not produced by the teachers in every cases since they appears in person. We are of the view that this Forum can take Judicial Notice of it. I.T. @ School is suppressing the said document which undoubtedly proved that the entire financial transaction and offering of warranty is done by opposite party No.2.
11. In the light of the above discussion this Forum came to the conclusion that opposite party No.1 to 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable for the loss of the complainant who were supplied with defective poor quality Laptop.
11. In the result, we order that the opposite party No.1 to 3 and 4 shall refund the price of the Laptop 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 22nd day of August, 2015.
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER(in-charge of President)
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of complainant : PW1
PW1 : K. T. Abdul Gafoor, complainant.
Documents marked on the side of complainant : Ext.A1 to A5
Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Receipt dated, 10-05-2011 for Rs.16,270/-
from second opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Receipt dated, 09-02-2011 for Rs.1,500/-
from second opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the Tax Invoice dated, 27-04-2011 by second
opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the Customer Call Feedback Report dated, 25-07-2013
from second opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A5 : Photo c
opy of the Terms and Conditions on Wipro Notebook Warranty.
Witness examined on the side of opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of opposite party : Nil
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER(in-charge of President)
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
