By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Three complainants have jointly preferred this complaint alleging the same consumer grievance. It is their case that opposite party advertised conduct of DCA Computer course at their centre at Thuvoor. Believing these representations complainants joined the course. The total fee for the course was Rs.2,250/-. Complainants were given facility to remit the fee in instalments. First, second and third complainants paid Rs.1,800/-, Rs.575/- and Rs.525/- respectively towards the fee. There were 16 students initially. After one month opposite party abandoned the conduct of course. Though complainants requested to refund the fee it was not heeded to. Complainants suffered irreparable loss and hardships. Hence this complaint.

2. First opposite party who is the Computer Instructor attached to Wandoor Block Panchayat Training Centre, filed version stating that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the Scretary of Wandoor Block Panchayat, who is the person entitled to represent and be sued on behalf of the Block Panchayat. That under the auspices of the Wandoor Block Panchayat Computer Training Centre, no branch was functioning at Thuvoor and the complainants are not known to first opposite party. That first opposite party did not admit the complainants to the course and has not collected any fees. The allegations are denied as incorrect. It is stated that there is no post as 'Course Director' and first opposite party has filed this version only on receiving copy of complaint.

3. Second opposite party was impleaded subsequently, as per orders in I.A.142/07 filed by complainant. Second opposite party entered appearance through the Government Pleader and filed version. It is admitted by second opposite party that there was a Computer Centre bearing number M/572 which was granted to one Safuddin C.T., S/o Abu, Chaliyathodi House, (PO) Melattur which functioned at Thuvoor under the Ownership and Control of second opposite party from 01-02-2003 onwards but was abandoned with effect from 03-11-2003 due to loss. Only an instructor was appointed and there was no course Director. In the present case, neither the Instructor nor Safuddin C.T. is made a party. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder. It is further submitted that no files or records can be traced from the office of the Block Panchayat and so the complainants maybe directed to produce copies of relevant documents. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of second opposite party.

4. Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by first complainant on behalf of the other complainants and Exts.A1 to A5 marked for complainants. First opposite party did not file any separate affidavit. Second opposite party filed counter affidavit. No documents marked for second opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

5. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder?

(ii) Whether opposite party is deficient in service?

(iii) If so, reliefs and costs.

6. Point (i):-

Second opposite party has raised the contention that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of Sri.Safuddin to whom second opposite party had entrusted the functioning of the centre at Thuvoor. It is also stated that the Computer Instructor is to be made a party. Admittedly the alleged centre at Thuvoor was under ownership and control of second opposite party/Wandoor Block Panchayat. Further it also stated that the instructor was appointed by second opposite party. In such a case, the foremost responsibility is upon second opposite party and therefore the non-joinder of the agent Sri.Safuddin or the Computer Instructor does not make the complaint defective. The point is found in favour of complainant.

7. Point (ii):-

It is not disputed that the computer centre at Thuvoor was abandoned by opposite party. Complainants affirm that the fees paid was not refunded. Ext.A1 series are the fee receipts issued by second opposite party to first complainant. The total fees paid as per Ext.A1 is Rs.1,820/-. The second complainant has paid Rs.575/- as per Ext.A4 and A5 receipts. The amount paid by third complainant under Ext.A2 receipt is Rs.525/-. Opposite parties do not have a case that they refunded the amount. All these receipts bear the head note and seal of second opposite party. Ext.A5 is the prospectus of the computer course issued by Wandoor Block Panchayat Computer training centre. There is nothing before us to disbelieve these documents. Complainants have succeeded in establishing the consistant case put forard by them. It is evident from the receipts that the fees was collected by second opposite party. When the course and the computer centre was abandoned, second opposite party ought to have refunded the fees at the earliest. Non-refund is definitely deficiency in service. We find second opposite party deficient in service.

8. Point (iii):-

As already discussed the claim for refund of fees is only to be allowed. After abandoning the course in 2003, the complainants requested for refund of fees. This was not heeded to and hence they had to move this complaint before the Forum. Till this date second opposite party has been unjustifiably lethargic in resolving a consumer dispute. Such kind of total disregard to consumer in our opinion cannot be allowed to be repeated. For a petty sum the consumer is dragged and burdened with a litigation for all these years by putting forward lame defenses of non-joinder. In our view interest @ 12% upon the amount of refundable fee to each complainant would not only be adequate compensation to the complainants but will also serve as a message to opposite party, not to indulge in such practices any more. Each complainant is entitled to Rs.1,000/- as cost of this proceedings.

9. In the result we allow the complaint and order the following:-

(i) Second opposite party shall pay Rs.1,820/- (Rupees One thousand eight hundred and twenty only) to the first complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from date of complaint till payment.

(ii) Second opposite party shall pay Rs.575/- (Rupees Five hundred and seventy five only) to the second complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from date of complaint till payment.

(iii) Second opposite party shall pay Rs.525/- (Rupees Five hundred and twenty five only) to the third complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from date of complaint till payment.

(iv) Second opposite party shall in addition pay to each complainant cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only)

(v) Time for compliance of this order is fixed as one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dated this 21^st day of August, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5

Ext.A1series : Receipt for Rs.1820/- by opposite party to first complainant.

Ext.A2series : Receipt for Rs.525/- by opposite party to third complainant.

Ext.A3 : Receipt for Rs.75/- dated, 16-10-2003 by first opposite party to second complainant.

Ext.A4 : Receipt for Rs.500/- dated,06-11-2000 by first opposite party to second complainant.

Ext.A5 : Prospectus given by opposite party to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER