Karnataka

Koppal

CC/75/2014

Nagaraj S/o. Mallappa Koppal, Yelaburga - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pearson Education Service (P) Ltd., Bangalore - Opp.Party(s)

M V Mudgal

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD CIVIL COURT BUILDING, JAWAHAR ROAD, KOPPAL
 
Complaint Case No. CC/75/2014
 
1. Nagaraj S/o. Mallappa Koppal, Yelaburga
Age-42 Years, Secretary, Jnana Sagara Gramina Academy, Near Pattana Panchayat, Yelaburga
Koppal
Karnataka
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Pearson Education Service (P) Ltd., Bangalore
10, 3rd Main, Ashwini Layout, Intermediate Ring Road, Ejipura, Koramangala, Bengaluru
Bengaluru
Karnataka
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE K.V.Krishnamurthy. PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. R.BANDACHAR MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:M V Mudgal, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

An end use license agreement was entered between the parties to the proceedings on 17-11-2011 as per the agreement available in the file containing the payment schedule and other terms.  On July 26, 2012, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP company is as follows;

 

“I hereby request you for the above subject that I am to going cancel the Digi class service installed in our school from the December of 2012.  As it is not affordable to our organization.  And the parents of our school students as they from agriculture base are failed to understand the benefit of the smart education and not willing to pay the fees of the Digi Class. So please cancel the agreement and request the co-operation with us in further years.”

            2.  A notice dated: 15-10-2014 has been issued by the OP Company, which discloses the factual matrix of the case.  The notice is as under;

 

 

            3.  To overcome the payment notice for payment of money due to the company, the complainant filed this complaint on 08-12-2014 seeking compensation of Rs.4,60,000.00 on various counts contending that non-cancellation of the agreement by the OP Company amounts to deficiency in service.

            4.  U/sec 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986, ‘deficiency’ means - any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any other service.

            5.  In the instant case, condition No.10 reads as follows;

            10. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT:

10.1 This Agreement will automatically terminate on the
          expiry of initial term or extended term, as the case
          may be, unless and until specifically extended or
          terminated on/before the period of the contract.

10.2  This Agreement and the license granted herein may be
           terminated by Pearson Education Services in the
           event of a breach by the school of any of the terms
           hereof or if the School files a voluntary petition in
           bankrupt is adjudicated a bankrupt or is liquidated or
          dissolved or ceases active business operations.

10.3  The school can terminate the Agreement by providing
           60 days written notice.  When the Agreement is
           terminated by School at any time before the natural
           efflux of the term of this Agreement for any reason
           whatsoever, by clearing the dues towards Person
          Education Services.

 

            6.  In view of above stipulation, the agreement can be cancelled by the complainant by giving 60 days written notice and after clearing dues towards Personal Education Services.  This condition has not been complied with nor the dues were paid.  When it was permissible for the complainant himself to cancel the agreement, the question of complaining non-cancellation of the contract by the OP company at the instances of the complainant is not permissible under the law.  Therefore, allegation of deficiency in service is frivolous and vexatious.

            7.   Proof of loss of Rs.3.00 Lakh on account of transaction is not proved.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Company.

            8.  In our view, the transaction is for commercial purpose as could be ascertained from the terms of the contract and also the prayer seeking monetary loss of Rs.3.00 Lakh in the complaint.  As such, the complaint is not entertainable by a District Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.

            9.  For what has been stated above, we have no hesitation to dismiss the complaint.  Ordered accordingly.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.

P.W.1

Sri. Nagaraj S/o. Mallappa Koppal,
R/o. Yelaburga.

 
 
[HONORABLE K.V.Krishnamurthy.]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. R.BANDACHAR]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.