Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/12/39

Muhammed Ashraf - Complainant(s)

Versus

Enterprenure, Akshaya Centre - Opp.Party(s)

25 Feb 2015

ORDER

C.D.R.F. Kasaragod
Kerala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/39
 
1. Muhammed Ashraf
S/o.Abdulrahiman, Kazhi Manzil, Cheriya Alampady, Po.Alampady, Kasaragod
Kasaragod
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Enterprenure, Akshaya Centre
New Bus Stand Complex, Kasaragod
Kasaragod
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. P.RAMADEVI PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Beena.K.G. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Shiba.M.Samuel MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

 

D.o.F:15/02/2012

D.o.O:25/02/2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC.NO.39/12

                  Dated this, the 25th      day of  February 2015

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI           : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA K.G               : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL    : MEMBER

Mohammed Ashraf.M

S/o Abdulrahiman,

Kazhi Manzil, Cheriya Alampady,              : Complainant

Muttathody , Alampady Po,

Kasaragod.

(Adv.Subash Bozz.V.M)

 

The Entrepreneur, Akshaya  Centre,

New Busstand Complex, Kasaragod.         : Opposite party

(Adv.A.M.Abdul Jamal)

                                                                    ORDER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL    : MEMBER

 The gist of the complainants case is that  he was a graduate and  he is the eldest son of his parents and he was constrained to  discontinue his studies and   started to work as front office executive  at hotel city tower resort Kasaragod.  His family was  maintained out of the income derived  from his job.  But being an aspiring student  he applied for  master in degree in tourism management course in Indira Gandhi Open University through the opposite party.   He submitted  the application on 24/10/11 along with attested  provisional  degree certificate  and also with DD   bearing No.257635  drawn on SBI Vadakara Branch in the name of the University  as fees for  the  first 2 semester  along with the  other documents such as  SSLC book  , Copy of Plus certificate and other documents etc.  He had also paid  an amount of Rs.500/- for the application form and  processing  fee. Eventhough the complainant on many occasions enquired about the  application  and the  for the study materials the opposite party  responded that  the application along with DD and documents  where already sent to the university.  Since the complainant was not received any acknowledged card in the 2nd week of January 2012 the complainant request the opposite party to make an enquiry  for which  the opposite party turned  deaf ears  to queries . Therefore the complainant availed  the  assistance of friends and relatives to make the request seriously by apprehending loss of  one year and consequences thereof.. The opposite party herein confessed  regarding the negligence on his part  and sent application subsequently.  The complainant  not received student  card  , fee receipt and provisional  admission card till the  filing of his complaint.  The act of the opposite party amounts to reckless  negligence and   clear case of deficiency service and unfair trade practice.  Complainant suffered great mental agony and physical  inconvenience.  Hence the complaint.  

    The opposite party appeared and filed version  by contending that  the all the allegations leveled against him is  baseless and the  complainant suppressed material facts.  As per the opposite party the complainants application  was accepted by IGNOU  and  registered  his name during the same academic year the student identity card was also sent to him  by the university .   The opposite party  had a specific case that  the application was submitted only on 16/2/12 and it was duly entered in the register regarding the admission to IGUNO  and immediately on the  same  day it was forwarded to Akshya Project officer and they too had forwarded the same  on 17/2/12.   And complainant got a admission in January session itself.  The opposite party further contended that  the complainant did not come to the opposite party after submitting the application and the complainant can complete the  course within 5 years from January 2012 as per the IGNOU scheme therefore  the question of laws  studies does not arose at all.   The opposite party is not responsible for any sort of  mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant  and there is no  latches   or deficiency of service  attributed against him.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 Now the points for consideration are

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party

2.    If so  what is the relief and  cost .

    The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A7 series  marked.  Opposite parties counsel represented that opposite party has no oral evidence and Exts.B1 to B4 marked.  Heard both sides.  Documents perused.

   As per the  exhibits marked before the Forum Ext.A1 is the application form of the complainant for  BA Travel and Tourism Management under  Indira Gandhi National  Open University.  The date of application clearly shows  as 24/10/2011.  According to PW1, he was an   aspiring student  constrained to discontinue  his studies and  started to work as Front Office Executive  since  he has to  maintain aged and ailing parents with  sisters and brothers.  Therefore he decided to continue education through correspondence course and with that intention he had approached the opposite party While perusing Ext.A1 ,the complainant had submitted his application on 24/10/2011 .It is also  evident that the study centre(as column No.4) as per Ext.A4 was shown as  Akshya Centre and also specifies the particulars of DD and its date of remittance of fees.  The specific case of the complainant is that he had submitted the application along with attested copy of SSLC certificate, plus two  mark list and provisional Degree certificate of Kannur University.  But as per the version of the opposite party the  complainant approached the Forum by  suppressing material  facts, he had  handed over the DD and  application to the opposite party only on 16/2/12 and the  same was duly entered in the register maintained  regarding  admission to Indira Gandhi Open University in the   day to day  work  of the  opposite party.  According to opposite party immediately  on receiving it, the same was forwarded to Akshya Project officer  ,Kasaragod and they too forwarded  the same on 17/2/12 to the Regional Centre Vadakara.   But it is  highly pertinent to note that on  careful perusal  of Ext.B1 itself is the clear proof of the  negligence on the part of the opposite party  ie,as per Ext.B1 which consists of the  15 particulars of applicants with full details regarding the  admission.  On the 8th page of the Ext.B1 the particulars of the  complainant is clearly mentioned.  As per the details  of DD  its number  and date of DD was compared with the  details of DD shown in the Ext.A1 as well as in Ext.B1 are tallying and the date of application is also clearly shown as  22/10/11as per Ext.B1.  Therefore we hold this  view that this complainant submitted his application not on 16/2/2012 but the same was submitted on the date mentioned in Ext.A1 which is more believable.  The opposite party has no case that PW1 submitted the application  to him  by correcting  the date shown in the copy of the application produced before the Forum.  It  means  that  the complainant  succeeded in substantiating his case that  he  had submitted the application on 24/10/2011 and the opposite party kept the  same with  him  till the expiry of  January 2012  and thereby the complainant suffered mental agony and other inconvenience.  Moreover it is  very crucial aspects in this case that the PW1 received student card, fee receipt and provisional admission letter  which marked as Ext.A7, A7 (a),to A7 (c) respectively  only on March 24th 2012 that is  only after  filing of this complaint and the last date for submitting the  assignment was on 31/3/2012 and it was impossible from the PW1 to prepare and  submit the assignment  in time.  Till 22/11/2012 , PW1 has not received the study material from the  University and when the PW1 contacted the University, it was informed that the study materials  has  already been sent to the study centre that  to the opposite party  herein.   The complainant lost one academic  year  only due  to the negligent  act of opposite party.  By considering  all these aspects, we are of the  opinion that there is gross negligence on the part of opposite party and hence opposite party is liable to  compensate for the  damages sustained to him.. 

  In the result,  the complaint is allowed  directing  the  opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant  as compensation along  with  Rs.5000/- as cost.   Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Exts:

A1- Application form

A2-copy of DD

A3-copy of acknowledgment

A4-copy of SSLC book

A5- copy of  higher secondary certificate

A6-copy of provisional certificate

A7-admission card

A7(a) to(c) receipt,letter and envelop

B1- copy of register

B2-Copy of student list

B3-computer slip

B4- copy of courier list

Sd/                                                                           Sd/                                                                      Sd/

MEMBER                                                 MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

eva

/Forwarded by Order/

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. P.RAMADEVI]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Beena.K.G.]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Shiba.M.Samuel]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.