CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI

Date of filing : 18/01/1999

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 17 OF 1999 Date of order : 13/05/2009



M/s.The Bharat Co-op. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd.

Central Office at Shivgiri, 1st floor,

Plot No.11, Samant Estate, Sonawala Cross

Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063. … Complainant

V/s.

1. M/s.Tru Information & Software System Pvt. Ltd.

Office at 1st floor, Kondabai Wadi, Sasmira Marg,

Opp. Worli Labour Camp, Worli,

Mumbai – 400 025.

2. Dr.Madhu Gupta & Associates

Office at 13-A, 2nd floor,

Dhan Laxmi Chambers, Near Railway Station

Thane (West). … Opposite Parties


Corum : Justice Mr.B.B. Vagyani, Hon’ble President
Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

Present: Ms.Sneha Dwivedi, Advocate for the complainant.

None for the O.Ps.

- : ORDER :-
Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Hon’ble President

Complainant is a Banking Company registered under Co-op. Societies Act. O.Ps. are the Computer Software and Hardware dealers and suppliers. The complainant as part of modernization of banking institution decided to computerise their two branches being at Bhandup Village Road and Mira Road. O.Ps. submitted detailed literature on all products with budget outlay. After discussions, the complainant by their letters dated 18/11/1996 and 11/12/1996 confirmed the orders of computerisation of their Bhandup Village Road and Mira Road branches respectively. The complainant made initial payment of Rs.5,86,580/- and Rs.5,68,250/- (Total of Rs.11,54,830/-) to O.P.No.1. O.P.No.1 acknowledged the payment. O.P.No.1 supplied computer Hardware and Software. O.P.No.1 installed the Software at respective branches of the complainant. O.P.No.1 had given warranty of one year and had promised to give 10 days training to five persons. The complainant made grievance that programme supplied by O.P.No.1 is easily accessed by any person. It is also alleged that any person can make changes in the bank record including accounts. It is also stated in the complaint that some of the results given by the Software supplied by O.P.No.1 are incorrect. The balances of the customers were also found incorrect. The complainant therefore informed O.Ps. for necessary changes. However, O.Ps. failed in giving modifications/security in accordance with the banking requirements and also failed to give training as per contract to five staff of the complainant. The complainant obtained second supplier for supplying Software programme required by it. The complainant also alleged that business of complainant is hampered because of incorrect result. Therefore, consumer complaint is filed.

The complainant has asked following reliefs :-



“a) That the Opposite Parties be ordered and decreed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 21% from the date of filing complaint till realization.

b) The cost of the complaint.

c) Any other and further reliefs this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.”



O.Ps. did not file written statement. Notices were sent Under Certificate of Posting for final hearing. However, none present for O.Ps. We heard Ms.Sneha Dwivedi, Advocate for the complainant.

We carefully perused the record.

The complainant has placed on record copies of correspondence that took place with O.Ps. There is no direct contract with O.P.No.2. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and O.P.No.2. O.P.No.1 has tie-up with O.P.No.2. At the instance of O.P.No.1, O.P.No.2 supplied ‘BANKMAN’ Software. In absence of contract, O.P.No.2 cannot be held responsible.

The correspondence certainly shows that the complainant faced certain problems. Reply letter sent by O.P.No.1 would clearly go to show that modifications, which were claimed by the complainant, are not due to any deficiency in software, but had arisen on account of new demands made by the bank. It is also seen from the reply letter of O.P.No.1 that most of the modifications demanded by the complainant-bank are already in the system. It is also informed by O.P.No.1 that all the functions and outputs required by the bank are available in the software ‘BANKMAN’. It is also informed by O.P.No.1 that BANKMAN is a software product developed by O.P.No.2 and any changes required to be done can be done by O.P.No.2 only. It is further informed by O.P.No.1 to the complainant that certain changes are not possible because they come into conflict with the basic design of the software. The correspondence would go to show that contract was fully complied with. There appears to be no deficiency on the part of O.P.No.1. The complainant has not placed on record affidavit of officer of either of the branches to show the nature of deficiency. The complainant has not taken pains to prove the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint by filing affidavit. Pleading is not a proof. Allegations made in the complaint are required to be proved by filing affidavit. We are constrained to observe that the complainant failed to establish deficiency in service by placing on record formal proof. We are therefore inclined to dismiss the complaint. Hence, we pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

2. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S.R. Khanzode) (B.B. Vagyani)

Judicial Member President