AUTOLITE INDIA LTD Vs. APPLE INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant M/s. Autolite (India) Ltd. is a public limited company incorporated under Companies Act, 1986 and had its office and factory at D- 469, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur. Complainant-Company is carrying on their business of general light lamps, fixtures and auto head lights etc.

(2.) Complainant's case is that it agreed to purchase softwares and hire the services of the opposite party for implementation of the software in the various departments of the complainant and also to hire services for training of its employees and its sister concern M/s. Anushika Industries Ltd. Opposite party by their letter No. CON/122/6433 dated 25.9.92 (Annexure-1) submitted their proposal regarding implementation of computers and also man- power development in complainant's organisation alongwith a brief write-up on strategic planning for information system (SPIS ). The opposite party also enclosed with their aforesaid letter an outline of deliverables and financial implications. The opposite party discussed the matter with complainant's management and thereafter submitted their revised proposal vide their letter No. MKT/con/6533 dated 27.10.92 (Annexure 2 ). Complainant vide their latter No. AIL/proi/92/109 dated 28.10.92 (Annexure-3) placed an order to the opposite party on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Rest of the order terms and conditions were to be as contained in the letter of the opposite party dated 27.10.92 (Annexure 2 ). The assignment was to commence from 1st week of November, 1992 and was to be completed by May, 1993. The employees of M/s. Anushikha Industries Ltd. , sister concern of the complainant, were also to be trained alongwith the employees of the complainant-Company by the opposite party. The order dated 28.10.92 was duly accepted by the opposite party. The complainant had already paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the opposite party. The complainant vide their letters dated 23.3.93 and 13.4.93 clarified to the opposite party the activities and the responsibilities of the opposite party, the programme of completion of various milestones, financial arrangements etc. The opposite party by their letter dated 31.10.93 confirmed certain works to be done as per the contract including the training and modification and HRD package software etc. Some more correspondence passed between the parties.

(3.) The complainant states that as per complainant's order dated 28.10.92, the entire assignment was to be completed by the opposite party by May, 1993, but the opposite party failed to complete the same. The work done was also found defective and unuseful. The complainant by its letter dated 20.12.93 pointed out to the opposite party that the software work given by the opposite party was being handled by them very poorly. It was also pointed out to them that out of 7 softwares supplied by them 5 softwares were not in working conditions and therefore the same cannot be called as installed. Other 2 softwares were technically of very poor quality and they also did not cover the work efficiently and completely. The complainant by its letter dated 8.1.94 specifically pointed out to the opposite party that no proper training was given, the implementation of the software supplied could be made due to certain problems in the software, errors, lack of proper demo, training and documentation. It was also pointed out to them that the software was not properly installed by the opposite party/their consultant, M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. It was also mentioned to the opposite party that due to problems, computerisation programme was getting delayed resulting into heavy losses to the complainant. Further letters dated 27.1.94 and 12.2.94 were sent to the opposite party to which a vague reply dated 21.2.94 was given by the opposite party. Complainant vide its letter dated 26.3.94 pointed out the mistakes in addition to previous mistakes already pointed out to the opposite party in implementing the software provided and requested. them to rectify mistakes. By another letter dated 30.3.94 it was pointed out to the opposite party that their persons would be, as per the contract, with the complainant until implementation process was over, but the persons deputed by the respondent left the complainant. It was also pointed out in the said letter that the user manual, source code and system reports were not supplied to the complainant and in many other package no work was done by the opposite party. Thereafter several letters were sent by the complainant to the opposite party as well as legal notice. Complainant-Company's grievances are: (1) Softwares supplied by the opposite party were full of defects, imperfection in the quality, potency and standard which are required to the maintained. (2) Softwares supplied to complainant were inadequate for the performance required for a computerisation programme. (3) Due to non-performance by the opposite party in completing the agreed work and due to defects and deficiencies in the software supplied, the complainant had suffered not only monetary losses but also in his business reputation. Complainant-Company has therefore, prayed that opposite party be directed to rectify the softwares already supplied to the satisfaction of the complainant. Opposite party be directed to supply user's mannual, operational manual, system reports and source code immediately to the complainant. Opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs.12 lakhs to the complainant as damages. Alternatively, the opposite parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.4.00 lacs to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from October, 1992 till payment. In addition a sum of Rs.12.00 lacs to the sum of Rs.12.00 lacs against damages caused by the negligence and failures of the opposite party. Opposite party filed its version on 4.3.95. The opposite party admites that the complainant entered into agreement with the opposite party. It is admitted that the opposite party had sent a letter on 25.9.92 to the complainant regarding implementation of computers and also manpower development in complainant's organisation alongwith a brief write-up on the strategic planning for information (SPIS ). It is admitted that the complainant had placed an order to the opposite party on 28.10.92 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It is stated that the opposite party were to commence the assignments from 1st week of November, 1992, but completion was subject to full cooperation of the complainant. It is admitted that it was stipulated that the employees of M/s. Anushikha Industries Ltd. will also be trained alongwith the employees of the complainant- Company. With regard to complainant's letter dated 30.10.93 (Annexure-5), the complainant had said that 85% formats were given to the opposite party and remaining 15% would be sent shortly. Other documents referred to by the complainant in the said letter had got nothing to do with the present contract.