KERALASTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.630/05 JUDGMENT DATED : 26/2/09 PRESENT:- SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER O.Kunhimohammed Treacher, Odayapurathu Veedu, Thozhanoor (PO) : APPELLANT Randathani, Malappuram (By Adv.S.Reghukumar) Vs 1. Executive Director (Dr.K.M.Pavithram) National Insitute of speech Hearing (NISH) Palace Road, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram 695 012. : RESPONDENTS 2. Director, National Insitute of Speech Hearing (NISH) Palace Road, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram 695 012. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF Thiruvananthapuram in the file of OP &6/04 dated 30/6/2005. The appellant is the complainant who prefers appeal from the finding of the Forum below in the above OP. 2. The brief of the case is that the complainant’s son Amjad joint the BASLP course for the year 2002-2003 conducted by the opposite party’s institution and paid Rs.90,000/- under the head of infrastructure development fund, tuition fee, special fee, caution deposit etc.. It was the fee for the first year out of the 4 year course. But he could not appear for the first year examination due to shortage of attendance. He was given readmission after getting sanction from the university. So Mr.Amjad was informed that to take admission after paying the tuition fee and special fee. Subsequently Amjad brought a post dated cheque of 1/11/03 on 15/9/2003 for the prescribed amount. But the opposite party hesitated to reappoint him in the first year course which comes under deficiency of service. So he filed this complaint praying to repay Rs.90,000/- and also prays compensation for mental agony of Rs.50,000/- and also claim Rs.2,65,500/- as compensation and cost. 3. The opposite parties filed version They admitted that they have received Rs.90,000/- as fee including non-refundable infrastructure fund. But as per regulation of the course, the candidate must have a minimum of 80% attendance for theory and 90% attendance for practical to appear for the examination. But Amjad had only 76% attendance for theory and 65% attendance for practical. Therefore he could not appear for the examination. Later the student informed to take readmission after paying statutory fees. But he did not remit the fee. Subsequently he brought a post dated cheque. There was no provision for accepting such cheque. So he was advised to remit the fee in cash or D.D. Amjad however did not turn up again. So all the averments mentioned in the petition are created by himself. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is not maintainable. 4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Ext.P1 to P24 and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked from the side of the opposite party. 5. The Forum below found that the complainant is not maintainable according to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The Forum below dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant for no loco-standi to file this complaint. 6. The complainant prefers this appeal from the above finding of the Forum below. Heard both sides. The counsel for the appellant submitted on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the complainant paid Rs.90,000/- towards the fee /consideration and also he is having every right to represent the son and claim for relief in the capacity as a beneficiary. He also submitted that the complainant’s son was lost one year due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. The counsel for the respondent/opposite party submitted that the DD was produced or paid fee in right time in the opposite parties institution by the complainant. The opposite parties were very clearly intimated that the student was having the shortage of attendance and not eligible to appear for the university examination. Only alternative remedy is available to him that forward delay condoned application along with the medical certificate to the university. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the complainant who already submitted the application before the opposite party’s office but they hasn’t forward this delay condoned petition along with medical certificate to the university authorities for condone the shortage of attendance. 7. By the verification of the evidence, available in the Lower Court Records this Commission reveal that there is no supporting evidence adduced by the complainant to prove his case against the opposite parties. In other words the complainant have no locus standi to file such a complaint on behalf of his adult son. We are not seeing any reason or reasons to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable and accordance with the law and evidence. The IA filed by the appellant No.121/08 to implead his son
Amjad in this appeal is also heard and dismiss along with this appeal. This appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER PK.
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
