Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on V.C.  

 2.                      None appears for the respondent.

3.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

4.                      The case of the complainants, in nutshell is that in response to the advertisement of the OP  dtd.18.01.2011 got  them admitted in certain course of  Tamil language and they are assured of getting stipend of Rs.200/-. The complainants  alleged that they have filled up the form to appear in the examination of the 24^th June,2012. Out of 22 candidates 13 got the stipend but 9 complainants did not receive the stipend although  the examination fees have been collected from them. So, they have challenged the authority to pay the stipend as the payment was not made, the complaint was filed.

5.            The OP  was set-exparte.

6.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum  passed the following order:-

                  Xxxxx              xxxxxxxx              xxxxxx

                 “ In the result, the complaint is hereby allowed exparte against the Ops. The Ops are hereby directed to pay the stipend for six months @ Rs.1200/- to each of the complainants ( i.e.@ Rs.200/- per month). The Ops are further directed to refund Rs.350/- to each of the complainants. Compensation for mental agony is fixed at Rs.2000/- and litigation cost is assessed at Rs.1000/- payable by the Ops to each of the complainants. The order be complied with by the Ops jointly & severally within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainants are at liberty to execute the same against the Ops in accordance with law.”

7.           Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  learned District Forum without  hearing the OP has passed the impugned order. According to him, they have received the notice but not allowed to participate in the hearing. However, he submitted that they have already paid the stipend as per the acquittance roll annexed to the appeal memo. So, he submitted that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.  

8.             Considered the submission of learned counsel for  the appellant,   perused the DFR and  impugned order.

9.               It is admitted fact  that the complainants have filed a joint complaint stating that they have not received the stipend although they have paid the examination fees to appear in the examination. This matter is not related to examination related  but it is a stipend payable to the  candidates who appeared in the examination by submitting fees. It appears from the DFR that the appellants have appeared but they have been set-exparte  the purpose is well known to the learned District Forum. However, since the stipend has already  paid as per the documents already produced by the appellant there is no deficiency in service  on the part of the appellant. Hence, this Commission  do not agree with the finding of the learned District Forum and as such the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.

                     Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                        DFR be sent back forthwith.