BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 351/2010 Filed on 02.11.2010

Dated : 29.09.2012

Complainant :

Cleetus. T, Joejo Bhavan, Keezhathil, Pulluvila, Pulluvila P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 526.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties :

1. HCL Infosystems Ltd., Midland Arena, 4/84, 84 A, 84 B, Marottichuvadu Junction, Edappalli, Kochi-682 024.

    

   (By adv. Binu Sukumaran)

    

2. P.N. Panicker Foundation, Confederation of Non-Government Organisation of Rural India (CNRI) 509, Sangeeth Nagar, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695 014.

(By adv. V. Bhuvanendran Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 27.09.2012, the Forum on 29.09.2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that complainant, on the basis of the 2^nd opposite party's [P.N. Panicker Foundation, Confederation of Non-Government Organisation of Rural India (CNRI)] advertisement notice, remitted Rs. 2,250/- on 24.06.2010 by way of D.D to HCL Infosystems Ltd., 1^st opposite party and entrusted the 2^nd opposite party with filled application/purchase order for PC along with the said D.D, that after 36 days, with the concurrence of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties complainant remitted another amount of Rs. 2,065/- by way of DD in the name of 1^st opposite party to supply TFT Monitor, that the application and DDs were handed over to the 2^nd opposite party, that instead of supplying TFT Monitor, 1^st opposite party's agent came to complainant's residence with CRT monitor, that as complainant apprised the 1^st opposite party's agent that he was booked for TFT monitor, the agent of the 1^st opposite party entrusted the complainant all other components of the computer except the CRT Monitor, that thereafter complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party through phone, but he did not get proper reply from them, that in the meanwhile the BSNL had issued bill to the complainant including the computer price of Rs. 300/- with tax. Since 1^st opposite party had not supplied the computer in total, complainant was not in a position to pay the price, without which BSNL never received the phone bill. Thereafter BSNL disconnected the phone. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not supplying the computer components in time. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to take back the computer components placed in the premises of the complainant and direct opposite parties to return the money remitted by the complainant along with the subsidy given by the Central Government and compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant due to frequent telephone disconnection.

1^st opposite party filed version contending interalia that complainant is not a consumer, that complainant does not disclose any cause of action against the 1^st opposite party, that complainant placed a purchase order on 26.06.2010 for PC under HCL NBPP and made the payment of Rs. 2,250/- by D.D dated 24.06.2010 and further made payment of Rs. 2,065/- by D.D dated 30.07.2010 for the LCD Monitor, that 1^st opposite party shipped the said goods on 03.08.2010, however, inadvertently by mistake shipped CRT Monitor instead of LCD Monitor which the complainant ordered, that complainant accepted the CPU and other accessories, however returned the CRT Monitor and asked to deliver the TFT as ordered, that due to circumstances beyond control the delivery of TFT to the complainant got delayed. Complainant refused to accept the offer of TFT made by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant in the first week of December 2010, that 1^st opposite party was always ready and willing to perform its part of obligation, but complainant without sufficient cause did not accept the TFT as ordered and sought refund of the whole amount, that complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as stated in the complaint.

2^nd opposite party also filed version contending interalia that 2^nd opposite party is a charitable society registered under Charitable Societies Registration Act and carrying out many social activities in the field of education and employment, that 2^nd opposite party took over many programmes of the Government and working in the grass root level in rural sectors, that 2^nd opposite party had given a press release as part of a social development programme carried out by the Government of India through certain agencies, that the scheme is promoting by Government of India in collaboration with BSNL, HCL by providing computer with subsidy, that 2^nd opposite party is only a facilitating agency for identifying the prospective customer to implement the programme of the government and foundation cherishing vision of computer for all as part of IT Literacy programme, that 1^st opposite party already agreed to carry out the proper supply and service of the computers without any complaint from the customers and undertaken all responsibility regarding any dispute with customers. The dispute is between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party is not liable for any dispute between the customers and the 1^st opposite party. There is no deficiency in service from the side of the 2^nd opposite party. Hence 2^nd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

(i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P5. Opposite parties have filed proof affidavit.

Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly as per Ext. P1 notice published by 2^nd opposite party, there was a social development programme carried out by Government of India through certain agencies and accordingly there was a scheme promoted by Government of India in collaboration with BSNL HCL Novatium Solutions to provide computer with subsidy. As per Ext. P1, customers need to pay Rs. 2,250/- to purchase computer by way of installment. Complainant would also get 5 years maintenance guarantee and Rs. 4,500/- government subsidy. Ext. P2 is the copy of the invoice value (triplicate) issued by HCL Infosystems Ltd. As per Ext. P2 the invoice value is 22,231.83. In the bottom of Ext. P2 it is seen recorded, received the goods in good condition and signed by the customer. Ext. P3 are copies of two counterfoils of D.D dated 24.06.2010 for Rs. 2,295/- and dated 30.07.2010 for Rs. 2,095/- taken in favour of HCL Infosystems Ltd. payable at Kochi. Ext. P4 is the bill dated 07.10.2010 issued by BSNL Ltd. As per Ext. P4 along with charges for telephone, BSNL has levied cost of computer supplied by HCL at the rate of Rs. 300/- from the customer. The very case of the complainant is that he could not use the computer since 1^st opposite party never supplied the required TFT Monitor, thereby he could not pay the amount of installment to BSNL as per the aforesaid scheme envisaged by Central Government in collaboration with BSNL and HCL. Though complainant was ready to pay the telephone bill, BSNL authority was reluctant to receive the same since complainant could not remit the entire bill amount including the cost of computer. As per the application filed by complainant for production of documents, 1^st opposite furnished original Agreement Cum Order (ACO) form duly signed by the complainant. Though complainant sought the production of documents collected from the complainant for procuring subsidy the 1^st opposite party has not produced the same stating that the said document is not in the custody of the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party has not filed any affidavit detailing the fact that the said document collected from the complainant for procuring subsidy is not in their custody. It has been argued by the complainant that as per Ext. P1 there are 2 plans, plan-I and plan – II for 60 months and 36 months respectively. According to complainant he had opted for plan-II for 36 months. Ext. P5 is the Agreement Cum Order form in which it is stated that complainant has opted 36 months scheme at the rate of Rs. 455/- per month. According to complainant, without his consent and knowledge, 1^st opposite party has converted his option from 36 months into 60 months. As per Ext. P4 BSNL has claimed Rs. 300/- which comes under plan-I as per Ext. P1. By Ext. P5 and Ext. P4 it is crystal clear that complainant had never opted plan-I for 60 months. 1^st opposite party has not furnished any document to corroborate the stand of the opposite party that complainant has opted for 60 months. It is apparent on the face of record itself that 1^st opposite party had converted the said option without the consent of the complainant. It should be noted that as per Ext. P3 complainant had remitted Rs. 2,295/- and Rs. 2,095/- on 24.06.2010 and on 30.07.2010, thereby it is clear that complainant has applied for computer on 24.06.2010, but it is admitted by the 1^st opposite party in their version that inadvertently by mistake shipped the CRT monitor instead of LCD monitor which the complainant ordered. 1^st opposite party has stated in their version that it was due to circumstances beyond control, delivery of TFT to the complainant delayed. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence to corroborate that aspect. The burden is on the part of the 1^st opposite party to show that it was due to circumstances beyond control the delivery of TFT to the complainant was delayed. Ultimately complainant/customer is the loser. He could not use the computer so far. He could not remit the telephone bill due to the inclusion of cost of the computer supplied by HCL in the said bill. Though complainant has placed agreement cum order form on 24.06.2010 and complied all the conditions stated therein, 1^st opposite party never complied terms of the agreement, thereby complainant suffered a lot. After a lapse of more than two years, it will be unfair and unjust to direct the complainant to accept the computer from the 1^st opposite party. The action of the 1^st opposite party in not supplying the computer in time to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Due to the act of the 1^st opposite party the very purpose of the said scheme promoted by Government of India is vitiated. In view of the above and evidence available on record, we are of the view that complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 4,315/- (Rs. 2,250/- + Rs. 2,065/-) with 9% interest from the date of complaint (02.11.2010) along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed. 1^st opposite party shall refund an amount of Rs. 4,315/- with 8% interest from the date of complaint (02.11.2010) to the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which, Rs. 4,315/- will carry interest at the rate of 12% from the date of this order. On receipt of the aforesaid amount, 1^st opposite party can take back the computer equipments placed in the premises of the complainant. Both parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of September 2012.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 351/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Cleetus. T

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of notice published by 2^nd opposite party

P2 - Copy of invoice value Rs. 22,231.83

P3 - Copies of two counterfoils of DD dated 24.06.2010 for

Rs. 2,295/- and dated 30.07.2010 for Rs. 2,095/-.

P4 - Telephone Bill dated 07.10.2010 issued by BSNL

P5 - Agreement Cum Order Form

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb