Date of Filing: 13-11-2015

                                                                             Date of Order:25 -09-2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B.  PRESIDENT

HON’BLE  Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER

Wednesday, the  25^th day of September, 2019

C.C.No.600 /2015

Between

M/s. Promising Scholars’ High School,

An institution run by Hazrat Amir Khusro Educational Society

A non-profitable society regd under AP (TA) Public Societies

Act 1350 F (Regn No.1248 of 2001) represented by its authorized

Signatory  Mr.Syed Mahmood Ashraf S/o.Syed Hussain Ashraf

Aged about 28 years, Occ: Employee, R/o.#8-1-398/D/46,

IAS Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad – 500 028                         ……Complainant

And

1. The Manager,

M/s. Educomp Solutions Ltd

A Public Limited company registered under

Companies act 1956 having its

Regional office at Unit No.1, 1A, 2 & 2A

4^th floor Amsri Classic Building No.9-1-127/4/1,

SD Road, Secunderabad – 500003

2. M/s. Edu Smart Services Pvt.Ltd

A Private  Limited Company registered

Under the Companies  Act 1956 having its

Registered office at L-74, Mahipalpur Extension,

New Delhi – 110037

3. M/s. Educomp  Solutions Ltd

A Public  Limited Company registered

Under the Companies  Act 1956 having its

Registered office at 1211, Padma Tower-I,

5, Rajendra Palace Extension, New Delhi – 110008

All 1 to 3 are represented by their Spl Power of

Attorney Holder D.Satish Goud S/o.Late D.Janardhan,

Occ: manager, R/o.H.No.29-1481, Kakatiyanagar (west)

Neredmet, Secunderabad – 56

4. The Managing Director, M/s. Educomp Solutions Ltd.,

514, Udyog Vihar, Phase-III, Gurgaon,

Haryana PIN : 122001                                                     ….Opposite Parties

Counsel for the complainant          :  Mr. M.M.Ali

Counsel for the opposite Parties    :  M/s.A.M.Rao

O R D E R

(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)

            This complaint has  been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act  1986 alleging  that the  opposite parties   having agreed  to provide  quality service under the contract  failed to perform it thereby  caused deficiency of service hence a direction to award compensation of Rs..10Lakhs  and further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss sustained by the complainant  institution and to award  rent of Rs.10,000/- per  month  for each of two rooms which were well furnished to be used by for keeping  equipment of the  opposite party  from the period from August, 2013 to October 2015 and  other compensation  is permissible in law. 

1. The complaint averments in brief are that  the opposite parties   have entered into Tripartite  agreement on 25-4-2012 with all the  illegal  and void clauses and against  the understanding by the  complainant  towards the  services agreed to be provided.  The opposite parties   have got fixed their equipment  in two  class rooms   in the premises of the complainant’s institution  and loaded  out dated software  in the systems.  They have provided  a control system to the  equipment  with  a password  which is known to their staff  alone. The staff of the opposite parties   used to  visit  complainant’s premises  once in a month and  collect  the cheque  for Rs.10,000/- and activate  the software  by using the password  for once in a  month  at the end.  The software  automatically  used to get suspended  till next visit of opposite party staff  to the  complainant’s premises  for re-activation and collecting  of monthly payment  of Rs.10,000/-.    The said  procedure was followed by the opposite parties  till July 2013 and thereafter  abruptly  stopped the service   and did not respond  for the several requests made  by the complainant for re-activating  the smart class equipment. 

              Opposite party No.1&2 got signed  some documents from the complainant  and collected the cheque for Rs.10,000/- towards advance payment  for installing the equipment and software without giving  any opportunity  to know the contents of the  said document to the   complainant.  While installing the equipment  they have  furnished  invoices copies and Tripartite agreement  with the terms and conditions    were already printed  through computer printer  and  details  of the same were never disclosed  to the complainant  while obtaining  signatures  on it.  There was no  ad-idem consensus from the complainant  for the said Tripartite  agreement.  In fact  opposite party No.1&2 informed to the  complainant institution  that signing   of Tripartite agreement  is only formality  and  it will be never  acted upon  hence the terms of  the said agreement are not binding  on the complainant. 

         The complainant  launched a big campaign  in the locality  around to  educate  people of  this  new interactive  EDU Classes  by spending  huge amount of Rs.2,00,000/-  in anticipation  of project  will be  implemented   smoothly  by the opposite parties  from July  2012.  Apart from that complainant  spent  huge amount  in the publicity and  spared  two well furnished  class rooms for keeping  the EDU class  interactive  Modules  hardware  and screen.  On account of abruptly stopping service by the opposite parties  from August 2013, the complainant   lost goodwill in the field and  reputation   among the  public  more particularly  student  community.  The opposite parties   were  to provide  services  for five years  and they did not  transfer ownership to the complainant for the equipment and software installed.  The two rooms which were kept  for usage for  EDU class  Interactive  software  have become  non-utilizable  to the complainant institution and on account of it huge loss  has been caused to the institution. On account of abruptly  stoppage of service the complainant terminated the agreement and requested the  opposite parties   to collect the equipment  installed in the two rooms but there was no response for  it.  When the staff of the complainant  interacted  with the  staff of the opposite parties   they admitted that   latest version of software  was not loaded hence it was  causing problem  in working system.  Finally the manager of the  opposite parties   called the complainant  in 2^nd week of  March,  2015 and assured  that matter  will be  resolved  very shortly but nothing has  happened.  For starting the smart classes  and  activate the EDUCLASS Interactive  modules a letter was  addressed  to the opposite parties   on 3-4-2015  but there was no reply or any  action on the  part of the opposite parties.  Opposite parties  played mischief  not only   with the complainant’s institution  but also with several schools in the State of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and  Telangana State.  The opposite parties   have cheated the  complainant’s institution  with dishonest intention  and  to defraud  and to have an  unlawful  for themselves.  On account of stopping of service abruptly in August 2013 the complainant’s institution   suffered loss of reputation in the society for not providing  smart class to the students and  huge loss in the form of rents and maintenance of the two rooms   same is still continuing. Hence the present complaint. 

2.    A common written version is filed  for all the opposite parties   admitting about the  tripartite agreement with the complainant’s institution,  installing of equipment to start smart class program but the denied the rest of the  allegations made in the complaint.    

                     The stand of the  opposite parties   is that they are companies duly incorporated  under the companies Act 1956 with registered  office at New Delhi.  They approached  the complainant  school  to set up the smart class program  by  showing demonstration with  the  complainant and having   satisfied  with it  accepted  for the terms  and conditions  and entered into a Tripartite agreement  on 25-04-2012 and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards advance.  The duration of agreement  is  five years from the date of completion of the  installation.  After entering  into an agreement   installed  the equipment  of hardware and software and started smart class programme in the premises of the complainant school.  They have provided  services as agreed in the  agreement  and rectified  the problems   from time to time but the complainant  stopped  quarterly payment from August  2013 without  assigning  any reason.  Hence legal notice was sent to the complainant on 19-09-2104 demanding to pay the  pending balance  and to revoke  the provisions of arbitration clause in the agreement  and to initiate  penal action under Sections 403,  406 and 420 of IPC.  The complainant  having received  the said notice   neither paid pending balance nor gave a reply  to it. 

              The complainant school  is using the  smart class  programme  for commercial use as such  there is no relation of consumer and service provider  with the opposite parties.  The present complaint has been filed as a counterblast  for the demand made for payment quarterly amount due by the complainant  to the opposite parties.  Hence complaint is liable  to be dismissed. 

                  In the enquiry for the complainant the evidence affidavit of its  authorized signatory  is got filed and the substance of the same is in line with the complaint averments .  To support the same  the complainant  school got exhibited Thirteen ( 13)  documents.    Similarly for the  Opposite Party  evidence affidavit  of Sri D. Satish Goud  stated to be Area Manager is got filed  and the  same  is replica to the written version filed for them.  No document is exhibited to support  the contents of  evidence affidavit.     Both sides have filed written arguments. 

            On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .        

1. Whether the complainant is  a consumer and can maintain the  present complaint before this Forum ?
2. Whether the  complainant could make out a case of either  unfair trade practice  or  deficiency of service  on the part of the  opposite parties  ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
4. To what relief?

Point No.1:  One of the objection taken in the written version by opposite parties  is that complainant  contacted with opposite parties   for providing  smart class programmes in the institution to use the same for its students and thus it is for   their business purpose  hence a   consumer complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.   Despite this  stand of the opposite parties  the complainant  institution  has not made  any effort to deny it and explain  the said contact with the opposite parties   is not for commercial purpose.   Admittedly  as per the  Tripartite agreement  the  services  agreed to be provided by the opposite parties   complainant promised to pay Rs.10,000/- per quarter  and infact paid  till  services  were   stopped by the opposite parties   in the  month of August, 2013 no where  it is stated by the complainant  that it is imparting the  education  to the students  without charging anything from them.    Similarly  it not the stand of the complainant  that school is being run on charity basis so whatever the services  it contacted with the opposite parties   on payment of remuneration is to impact  the students  from whom it is charging  in the form of fees.  In fact it has been  categorically stated in the complaint  that the complainant has  spent lakhs of  Rupees for publicity  about the programme offered  after having  contacted  with the opposite parties    for the  smart class programs.  Thus as rightly pointed out by the  opposite parties   the contact  between the parties  to the complainant  is for commercial purpose and not for its personal use alone.  In that view of the matter complainant cannot  maintain the present complaint before this Forum. 

Point No.2:  Under the Tripartite agreement   Ex.A1 the opposite parties   have agreed to install the  equipment and hardware to  provide smart class programs the complainant  has categorically stated that two rooms in the premises of the school were  set part  for  installing  the equipment  and after installing the  equipment  and software   the staff of the opposite parties   used to visit once in a month and open the  system by using the password  and the password was  not provided to the  teachers of the school  to use it in the absence of the staff of the opposite parties.  The Tripartite agreement under Ex.A1 does not provide  locking of the system and  keeping of the  password with the opposite parties   alone  then what made the complainant  not insisting  the  opposite parties   to pass on the password to the teachers for use of the software installed  in the absence   of the staff of the opposite parties   is not explained.    

              The complainant  had admitted payment of Rs.10,000/- per quarter   till services were abruptly stopped by the opposite parties   in August 2013.  Nothing prevented the complainant  to stop the payment when the opposite parties   staff  refused to pass  the password to the teachers   of institution  for the use of the software and impart  smart class program  to students. Nothing of that sort has happened. If the complainant’s version  is true  certainly  it should have at least issued  to  notice  to opposite parties   to back out from Tripartite  agreement  on  account of not sharing  the  password   of software to enable to teachers to use for smart class programme .

         It is only after issuance of legal notice  by the opposite parties   demanding  outstanding amount the complainant has come up with a version  that the opposite parties   abruptly stopped the sending the staff in August 2013 and infact to the legal notice of the opposite parties   no reply was sent by the complainant. 

          The main allegation of the  complainant is  it has  spent Lakhs of Rupees  on the publicity and  on account of  stoppage of service of opposite parties   abruptly  its reputation is lost   and it  quantified  the loss at Rs.10lakhs.  How this quantification   arrived is not explained.   The evidence affidavit  of any of  the teachers or the students who are affected on account of stoppage of the services by the opposite parties   abruptly  are not filed.  Except the self serving statement  of authorized signatory  of  the complainant   no independent  evidence is placed on record  to believe the  complainant’s  version.  The totality of the facts brought on record  shows that the complainant  as a  counterblast  to the legal notice got  issued  by the opposite parties   demanding  payment of  outstanding amount due has come up with  the present complaint and nothing else.  Hence the  point is answered against the complainant. 

Point No.3: Since  the complainant  has failed to substantiate  the allegation of  the unfair trade practice  or deficiency of service   not entitled  for the claims made in the complaint. 

Point  No.4: In the result, the complaint is  dismissed.  No  order as  to costs. 

                        Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced  by us on this the  25^th  day of September , 2019

MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1- copy of Tripartite agreement dt.25-04-2012

Ex.A2- retail invoice No.852 dt.22-6-2012

Ex.A3- way bill No.6065 dt.28-6-2012

Ex.A4-office copy of complaint given by plaintiffs dt.4-7-2012

Ex.A5-lorry receipt for delivery of equipment -18-7-2012

Ex.A6-retail invoice No.964 dt.7-11-2012

Ex.A7-legal notice dt.19-9-2014

Ex.A8-office copy of reply notice dt.15-10-2014

Ex.A9- office copy of  letter of plaintiff dt.03-04-2015

Ex.A10-copy of proceedings of the  RJD of School Edn., AP

Ex.A11- legal notice dt.15-10-2015                                     

Ex.A12- postal acknowledgment dt.26-10-2015

Ex.A13- Power of Attorney

Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties :

                                        -Nil-

MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT