IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 08^th day of April, 2022

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

         Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 222/2021 (filed on 29-09-2021)

Petitioner                                 :    Thamburu Sasidharan,

                                                      D/o Sasidharan,

                                                      Thamburu Bhavan,

                                                      Ramankari Village,

                                                      Kuttanad Taluk, Alappuzha District

                                                      Represented by Sasidharan.                

                                                      (Adv. V. Dhanush)

                                                                   Vs.                                                             

Opposite party                        :     Bluss Academy,

                                                      MS&S Building,

                                                      Kanjikkuzhi, Muttambalam Village,

                                                      Kottayam

                                                      Represented by its Director,    

                                                          O  R  D  E  R

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

The complaint is filed under Section -35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The brief of the complainant case is as follows:

The complainant is an M.Pham graduate.  The opposite party is an institution arranging admission for HAAD Examination for getting jobs in countries like UAE, by accepting fee and service charges.  The opposite party had given advertisements in newspapers that they were arranging admission for such examinations.  As per the advertisement, the complainant approached the opposite party for getting admission for HAAD examination. The opposite party promised to arrange for admission and to provide hall ticket for the HAAD examination on payment of Rs.42,000/- including fee for the examination and service charges.  The complainant had paid Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party on 19.11.2018 and had given the required documents.  The balance amount of Rs.17,000/- was deposited to the account of the opposite party in March 2019.  Even though the complainant had paid the entire fee of Rs.42,000/- to the opposite party, the opposite party failed to provide the hall ticket for the HAAD exam to the complainant.  The complainant had lost valuable time, money and suffered much mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence this complaint.  

On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was served to the opposite party.  The opposite party failed to file version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case. The opposite party was set ex-parte.

The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 documents.

On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points.

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the party of the opposite party.
2. If so what are the reliefs and costs.

For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.

On going through the complaint proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence adduced, it is clear that the complainant, who is an M.Pham graduate approached the opposite party for getting admission for HAAD examination.  The opposite party promised to arrange the admission for the HAAD examination to the complainant on payment of Rs.42,000/- being the fee for the examination and service charges.  The complainant paid Rs.25,000/- on 19.11.2018 and given the required documents.  The balance amount of Rs.17,000/- was paid to the account of the opposite party in March 2019.  Exhibits A1 is the receipt for the payment of Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party on 19.11.2018.  The opposite party failed to arrange the admission and to provide the hall ticket for the HAAD examination to the complainant.  Even though the complainant stated that Rs.17,000/- was paid to the account of the opposite party,  no document is produced to prove the same.  The opposite party failed to provide the hall tickets as promised for the HAAD examination to the complainant.  The complainant had lost valuable time and money due this act of the opposite party. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service as per Consumer Protection Act 2019.  Hence Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.  The complaint is allowed and we pass the following orders.

1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings with cost Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order in default the amounts will carry 6% interest from the date of this order till realization.    

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the                                                                    08^th day of   April, 2022.

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member        Sd/-

Sri. Manulal V.S. President   Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1- Receipt for the payment of Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party on 19.11.2018

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

      By Order 

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar