KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 520/2018

JUDGMENT DATED: 04.02.2020

(Against the Order in C.C. 288/2017 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT : 

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                  : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                             : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Sunil Kumar, Director, Zephyr Entrance Coaching Centre, Kunnumpuram, Ayurveda College Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.

                               (By Adv. B. Vasudevan Nair)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Abdul Jabbar C.S., T.C. 14/404, Firdouse, Mosque Lane, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

                                      (Party in person)

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

The appellant is the opposite party in C.C. No. 288/2017 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram and the respondent is the complainant.  The opposite party/appellant was ex-parte in the District Forum and the Forum allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant.  Aggrieved by the impugned order this appeal is preferred by the opposite party.

2.  Brief facts of the case are as follows: Complainant is the father of one Thasleema J.S. who joined the opposite party’s institute for entrance coaching (repeaters course) on 19.06.2017.  She attended classes up to 03.07.2017, i.e. for a period of 14 days.  Complainant paid Rs.48,000/- as course fee for the full term coaching.  While so, complainant’s daughter got admission to the professional course and so she left the course.  Complainant being a government servant and father of two daughters finds it very difficult to waive Rs.48,000/-.  So he approached the opposite party for refund of the course fee.  But they were not ready to refund.  So this complaint.

3.  Notice was accepted by the opposite party, but they failed to appear before the District Forum and the Forum proceeded ex-parte against them. 

4.  Complainant has filed affidavit along with 2 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 and P2.  The opposite party not appeared for contesting the case.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 43,200/- to the complainant. 

5.  In this appeal the appellant/opposite party submitted that there was no wilful fault from his side for the non-appearance before the Forum to contest the case.  The appellant stated that immediately on receipt of the notice in the complaint he entrusted the staff of the legal department to assign a counsel for the case, however the staff committed severe default in appointing the counsel for contesting the case.  Hence there was no representation before the District Forum.  In that circumstance the District Forum declared the appellant/opposite party as ex-parte and passed the impugned order. 

6.  The appellant argued that the District Forum has passed the order misinterpreting the law, mis-constructing the facts of the case, mis-reading the pleadings and evidence provided by the complainant.  The appellant further argued that they have sufficient reason to contest the case before the District Forum, hence they prayed for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. 

7.  We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent who appeared in person and perused the documents and gave our thoughtful consideration to the matter.

8.  The reason stated by the appellant for his non-appearance is not sufficient, but for the interest of justice we decide to give a chance to the appellant for contesting the case before the District Forum and decide the case on merits.  Hence we have not gone through the merits of the case. 

9.  However, remission of the case setting aside the order of the District Forum can be ordered only on terms directing the appellant to compensate the injury likely to be caused by the delay in culmination of the proceedings to the respondent/complainant.  Appellant has to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the respondent/complainant as a condition precedent for setting aside the order and remission of the case.   

The respondent is permitted to get release of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the appellant before the District Forum at the time of granting stay order, on proper application.  The appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount from this Commission which has been deposited by him at the time of institution of this appeal, on proper application.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order passed by the District Forum in C.C. No. 288/2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal, after giving opportunity to the appellant to file version and to adduce evidence, if any.  The District Forum shall dispose of the complaint as early as possible. 

T.S.P. MOOSATH    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb