DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 28^th day of May, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 28/12/2021

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 524/2021

COMPLAINANT

Aiswarya V.P., Vijayakumar S.R., Darsanam, 27/35C, FSARA63, Thripunithura P.O. 682301. Ernakulam

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

Bangalore University, Registrar, Mysore Road, Jnana Bharati, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560056.

F I N A L    O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant applied for her migration certificate from Bangalore University on 24/08/2021. The complainant had submitted the necessary documents including a payment of Rs.1,095/- to the opposite party. The complainant had also provided the correct address to the opposite party for delivering her certificate properly to the complainant. Before leaving the institution the complainant had enquired about the contact number or e-mail id of the opposite party. The opposite party had refused to provide the contact number of the opposite party stating that they didn’t have a contact number to provide. The opposite party offered that the certificate will be delivered to the complainant within 2 weeks. The complainant has not received the migration certificate so far without which she can’t pursue her further education. The complainant enquired about her migration certificate through the contact information they have provided in their website. The complainant had also sent an e-mail to the Registrar narrating all her grievance but there was no reply received from the office of the Registrar of Bangalore University. The complainant states that there is deficiency in service and negligence from the part of opposite party towards the complainant. Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party to provide the migration certificate along with a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant.

2. Notice :

Notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission on 29/01/2022. The said notice served to the opposite party on 09/02/2022. But opposite party not appeared before the Commission and version filed. Hence opposite party is set as ex-parte and the complaint was posted for evidence of the complainant to 19/12/2022 and then adjourned to 03/02/2023.

On 03/02/2023 the complainant was absent and there was no representation from the side of the complainant. The Commission observed that the complainant is absenting continuously from 18/10/2022. Hence the Commission issued notice on 08/03/2023 to the complainant to appear before the Commission to adduce evidence.

The notice sent to the complainant returned as ‘addressee out of India’. Hence notice to the complainant was repeated through the e-mail id of the complainant. The Commission also tried to contact the complainant over her phone No. 8921964618. Thereafter the complainant had filed an application for adjourning the evidence of the complainant and the adjournment application filed by the complainant is allowed and evidence of the complainant adjourned to 14/11/2023 as ‘NFT’.

On 14/11/2023, complainant was absent. The case was posted for filing the proof affidavit of the complainant to 07/02/2024.

On 07/02/2024 also the complainant was absent. Proof affidavit not filed by the complainant. The complainant has filed 5 documents along with the complaint.

Doc. No. 1 is a copy of the online payment details of the complainant for Rs.1,045/-, Doc. No. 2 is a copy of the online fee payment details of the complainant for Rs.50/-, Doc. No. 3 is a copy of the acknowledgement received from Bangalore University, Doc. No. 4 is a copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant and Doc. No. 5 is a copy of the aadhar card of the complainant.

Proof affidavit not filed by the complainant. We can’t believe the words of the complainant without filing a proof affidavit in the name of the complainant. When the matter was posted for adducing evidence of the complainant the complainant did not appear to give evidence. In the above circumstance we have perused the documents submitted by the complainant.

The case of the complainant is that the migration certificate of the complainant was not delivered to the complainant within 2 weeks. The complainant did not produce any other documents to support his case. The documents produced by the complainant are not sufficient to prove the case.

Considering the above circumstances especially the non-appearance of the complainant to adduce oral evidence and to make her presence before the Commission, we find that the complainant has not been successful enough to prove her case by adducing evidence to substantiate the complaint.

In the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.

Resultantly, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of evidence regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of May, 2024.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 524/2021

Order Date: 28/05/2024