KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 816/12
JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2013
PRESENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA :HON. MEMBER
APPELLANT
Divya Abraham
D/o Sri. Abraham J,
Cherayil House,
Near Muttom Church, Cherthala 688524.
Vs
RESPONDENT
The Director,
National Institute of Technology, Calicut
(Rep. by Adv. Shyam Padman, Calicut)
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kozhikode in C.C. No. 209/2010 dated 16.6.12. The appellant is the complainant prefers this appeal from the order of the Forum below that the forum below dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant miserably failed to prove her case.
2. In brief, the complainant had joined in the NITC IBM ACE centre for doing her own project associated with last semester University examination. The complainant had learned about NITC IBM centre located in the NITC campus from her center along with her client’s motive conducted initially in July 2009 and had primary discussions about the project and the assessments needed to complete project. On positive issuance from them, the complainant paid fee of Rs. 2,500/- on 8.8.09 along with 3 other friends consulted response of Rs.10,000/- on the very same day and subsequently a separate receipt was received by her after appropriating a share award receipt No. 3408 dtd. 23.4.10. The arrangement for working hours is six hour dedicated daily guidance through experienced guide during the first phase of the project work (from December 1 to December 28, 2009) and with prior appointment. For this the complainant paid 3 times regular fee of Rs. 7,500/- Accordingly on assuring that necessary languages like Core, Java etc. Service of the opposite party was not supporting hiding the above crucial information of the centre purposefully made false promise and collected the payment without rendering assured services. The management of the opposite party did not enforce sign in / sign out for the guide. The guide did not help at all in any way in connection with the development and the completion of project and hence no certificate for the project report was given as promise. Due to the deficiency in service from the opposite parties the complainant suffered great loss and mental agony. There after the complainant seeking relief against opposite party to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and refund of the payment of Rs. 7,500/- along with cost.
The opposite party appeared and filed the written version and contended that the complaint is not a consumer as per the Act. They denied the negligence for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. There is no higher service for consideration and the fee be collected as standard fixed fee. The complainant has not approached the Forum below with clean hands. She is seem to have surprised through collecting little facts of the case. The opposite party contended that the allegation that can regenerate all the centre had inspected the stand Miss. Jincy to legionaly with hold crucial opinion from the complainant and the other stands with the IBM had legally served that they contact with the centre and the centre would be closed down in December, 2009 further allegation that the guide was present in the centre from 11.30 AM to about 1.30 PM and 2.30 PM to 3AM for most of the days. She was miserably preoccupied otherwise not liable to the complainant, that this was possibly because a management did not enforce sign in or sign out for the guide is false and baseless and hence specifically denied by the opposite party.
The evidence consisted of Ext. A1 to A12 and there is no evidence both documentary and orally adduced addressed by the O.P/respondent. Examined one witness as Pw1 Joseph by the complainant.
The Forum below considered their evidence and found that the complainant is not having substantiating the evidence to prove her case. In the result the complaint was dismissed.
On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing the appellant/complainant is present in party in person and there is no representation for the respondent/opposite parties by perusing the documents and scrutinized the judgment and evidence. This Commission is seeing that the opposite parties committed some sort of deficiency in service from their part. They did not adduce any evidence to support their contentions in the versions. Their version is nothing but a mere statement. If they did not commit any deficiency in service they can atleast produce the documents which kept under them to prove their contentions which taken as a defense in the version. But the very same time the amount claimed by the complainant is very exorbitant and can not accordance with the norms and principles.
This Commission is seeing that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which proved by them both through the oral and documentary evidence. But the Forum below did not appreciate this evidence and dismiss the complaint without consider the grievance of the complainant. This Commission is seeing that the complainant is maintainable as per the provisions of law and the consumer complainant who adduced their maximum evidence to prove their case. In the circumstance, this Commission is seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is not in accordance with the provisions of law and the evidence. It is not legally sustainable. This Commission decide to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to set aside the order passed by the Forum below.
In the result, this appeal is allowed inn part. This complaint is also allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay
Rs.15,000/-by the opposite parties to the complainant. In this appeal the respondent/opposite parties are absent and there is no representation. In the circumstance they are also direct to pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
I do so.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
st
