State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
V.Pandiarajan,Correspondent,Modern ... vs Edusmart Services Private Limited,New ... on 7 December, 2015
1
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K.ANNAMALAI, M.A.M.L.,M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member
Thiru.M.MURUGESAN, B.Sc.,B.Ed., Member.
C.C.No.21/2014
MONDAY, 07th DAY OF DECEMBER 2015.
V. Pandiarajan,
Correspondent,
Modern Matriculation School Madurai,
Through Authorized Signatory,
Tirumogur Road,
Y. Othakadai,
Madurai - 625 107. Complainant
-Vs-
M/s. Edusmart Services Private Limited
Represented through its Vice President
Wz-931 A-2, Street No.14,
Sadh Nagar,
Palam,
New Delhi. Opposite Party
Counsel for Complainant : M/s. A.Haja Mohideen, Advocate.
Counsel for Opposite Party : Ex-parte.
This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 08.10.2015 and
on hearing the arguments of Complainant side and upon perusing the material
records this Commission made the following:
ORDER
2 THIRU. A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for direction to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,60,000/- + Rs.50,500/- towards refund of cost of the materials towards computer program with 18% interest and for costs of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The gist of the complaint in brief as follows:-
The complainant was running a small school in order to provide Smart Class Program to the students through the opposite party who promised to supply of entire project for Rs.3,60,000/- for every year for which if the man power and materials provided by the complainant he has to pay Rs.39,700/- accordingly the complainant paid Rs.3,60,000/- to the opposite party's agent by way of blank cheques for yearly maintenance charges and the opposite party received the same and provided few materials of three digital boards, lense, four systems and assured to issue the receipt. Subsequently on 20.07.2012 and 31.07.2012 the opposite party collected Rs.25,500/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively and subsequently did not turn up and evaded and avoided to come forward to give necessary trainings to the teachers for the Smart Class Program and failed to provide necessary software to update the syllabus having deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and deliberately cheated the complainants windled his amount, the opposite party issued legal notice on 27.06.2013 which was replied on 29.07.2013 which was returned as left and subsequently the opposite party 3 sent the arbitration letter for which reply was sent hence the complainant has come forward with this complaint claiming refund of Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.50,500/- with 18% interest and Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other damages and for costs Rs.10,000/-.
3. Notice for appearance of opposite party sent by this Commission was returned as refused on 10.12.2014. Hence service of notice was held sufficient and on 14.08.2015 the opposite party was set exparte.
4. The complainant filed his proof affidavit and on the side of complainant documents Ex.A1 to A11 are marked.
5. The following points are for consideration.
(1) Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in not providing the services relating to Smart Class Education system through the materials and software to the complainant?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- +Rs.50,500/- with 18% interest as refund for the Payment towards materials to be supplied by the opposite party?
(3) Whether the complainant is entitled for claiming of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for damages and other sufferings?
POINT No.1
6. In this complaint enquiry the complainant contended in the complaint and in the proof affidavit having conducting a small school with good name and reputation in order to provide latest technological knowledge through 4 the Smart Class Program by utilizing materials and software to be supplied by the opposite party arranging the program on yearly basis collected Rs.3,60,000/- for the 1st program and also received Rs.25,500/- and Rs.25,000/- for the purpose of materials and the opposite party did not supplied the same and also not conducted any trainings program to the teachers and to perform Smart Class Program to the students as promised and thereby the complainant had suffered. The complainant filed the documents of agreement and receipts issued by the opposite party as Ex.A1 to A3 would go to prove the contentions of the complainant. Even though the opposite party sent legal notice to the complainant stating that they had installed entire hardware for the purpose of program and the complainant failed to fulfill his obligations claiming for a sum of Rs.3,90,700/- under Ex.A7 arbitration notice, but the opposite party failed to appear before this Commission and to put forth their case as defence against the allegations of the complainant and evidence against materials supplied by the complainant in this case become unchallenged and not disproved and thereby the complainant case is proved against the opposite party. In view of the same we hold that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in providing the services regarding Smart Class Program to the children of the complainant and the complainant school and this point is answered accordingly. POINT No:2 & 3
7. In view of the findings in point no.1 the complainant is entitled for refund of payment of Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.50,500/- which was paid to the 5 opposite party towards the supply of materials and software and for the arrangements to be provided for the same is entitled with interest and as far as the claim of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- is concerned, the complainant failed to justify how he is entitled for such a huge amount when he had paid to the extent of Rs.4,10,500/- only towards the teaching materials to be supplied by the opposite party for which it has been paid, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also since the opposite party dispute and the claims of the complainant through the legal notice and arbitration notice, we are of the view a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation could be awarded to the complainant and these points are answered accordingly. POINT No:4
8. In view of the findings in point numbers 1 to 3 in favour of the complainant the complaint is to be allowed in part and accordingly,
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, (1) The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.50,500/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party towards the promised materials of software and for the Smart Class Program with 12% interest from the date of complaint till date of realization.
(2) The opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the damages, loss, sufferings caused, and due to the deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice by the opposite party to the complainant.
(3) To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs.
6(4) The above directions shall be complied within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxx
M.MURUGESAN, A.K.ANNAMALAI,
MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
ANNEXURE
List of Complainant Documents
Ex.A1 08.12.2010 Agreement executed between the complainant and the
opposite party.
Ex.A2 20.07.2012 Receipt issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A3 31.07.2012 Receipt issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A4 27.06.2013 Legal notice issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A5 29.07.2013 Reply notice sent by the complainant to opposite
Party and his counsel.
Ex.A6 08.08.2013 Returned Envelope.
Ex.A7 30.05.2014 Arbitration notice issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A8 23.07.2014 Arbitration Notice issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A9 01.08.2014 Reply notice sent by the complainant to opposite
party and his counsel.
Ex.A10 01.08.2014 Returned Envelope.
Ex.A11 Smart Class Repository Program Pamphlet.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxx
M.MURUGESAN, A.K.ANNAMALAI,
MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
7
INDEX: YES/NO
AMS/Mdu.Bench/Orders- 2015/Dec.
8