KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 170/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 13.01.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 157/2016 of CDRF, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN    : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The Principal, MES College of Engineering, Thrikkanapuram P.O., Kuttippuram, Malappuram.

                       (By Adv. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Fasna Kadakkadan, D/o Haneefa, Kadakkadan House, Vattaparamba, Chappanagadi P.O., Kottakkal (via) Malappuram.

                             (By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

The opposite party in C.C. No. 157/2016 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram is the appellant.  He is the Principal of an Engineering College at Kuttippuram, Malappuram.  The appellant challenges an order dated 31.10.2016 of the District Forum, allowing the complaint.

2.  The respondent/complainant had taken admission to the MCA course conducted by the appellant, for the year 2009-12.  The duration of the course was 3 years.  At the time of her admission, the respondent had entrusted her valuable records like the original S.S.L.C. Book with mark list and original degree certificate along with mark list to the appellant.  She had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 09.07.2009 and Rs. 39,505/- on 25.09.2009 into the S.B. Account maintained by the appellant in the Punjab National Bank, Kuttippuram branch.   The amounts represented the fees payable by her for the first two semesters.  The respondent got married during the first semester of the course.  She became pregnant and thereafter she was not able to continue her studies.  She had to discontinue her studies in the above circumstances. 

3.  After she had discontinued the studies her father Mr. Haneefa approached the appellant and requested for the return of all her original certificates and mark lists.  But the appellant refused the same demanding an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent.  Therefore, on 14.03.2016 the respondent caused the issue of a registered notice through her lawyer demanding return of her original documents.  On receipt of the notice, the appellant issued a reply notice reiterating his demand for Rs. 1,00,000/- as condition for return of the original documents.  Consequently, the respondent contended that she could not join any other course of study or search for a job.  It was contended that the illegal act of the appellant amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum for the recovery of her original certificates and compensation.

4.  On receipt of notice from the District Forum the appellant entered appearance and filed his version.  According to him, as per clause 12-2-4 of the Kerala Govt. Prospectus for MCA course for the years 2009-10, if a candidate discontinues/leaves the institution after closing the admission in the same year or in the subsequent years for any purpose, she shall be directed to pay liquidated damages of the fees payable for the remaining years, since her seat would remain vacant.  However, after filing version the appellant did not appear. Therefore he was set ex-parte. 

5.  The respondent filed her affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. A1 to A4 documents. 

6.  After close of the evidence the District Forum heard the counsel for the respondent and allowed the complaint directing return of the original certificates to the respondent without collecting any amount from her as liquidated damages.  An amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as costs.  The aggrieved opposite party is the appellant. 

7.  According to Adv. N.G. Mahesh who appears for the appellant, it was due to the fault of the respondent that her course had to be abandoned midway.  Since her seat had remained vacant throughout the duration of the course, the appellant had suffered loss.  The liquidated damages have been claimed in order to cushion the loss caused to the appellant as stated above.  In the prospectus for admission to MCA Course Kerala 2009-2010 issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations it has been stipulated that if any candidate discontinues/leaves the institution after closing of the admission in the same year or in subsequent years to join other courses or for other purposes, such candidate is liable to pay liquidated damages of Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, claim for liquidated damages is an accepted practice in such situations.  For the above reason, the counsel submits that the District Forum seriously went wrong in directing return of the original certificates to the respondent without demanding liquidated damages.  Therefore the counsel seeks interference with the order appealed against. 

8.  The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, points out that the refusal to return her original certificates has been the cause of a lot of hardships and irreparable loss to the respondent.  All these years the respondent has been prevented from either pursuing her studies in some other courses or institution.  She was also prevented from searching for a suitable job.  She has by this time become over aged to apply for a Govt. job.  Therefore, the loss caused to her is irreparable and it cannot be compensated in terms of money. 

9.  Heard.  Though the appellant had filed version before the District Forum he did not contest the complaint.  Therefore the District Forum declared him ex-parte.  The respondent filed proof affidavit, produced and marked Exts. A1 to A4 documents.  Thus, in this case there is evidence only on one side.  Exts. A1 and A2 prove that the respondent had remitted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 09.07.2009 and a further amount of Rs. 39,505/- on 25.09.2009 towards the semester fee to the appellant.  Exts. A3 and A4 are the notice and reply notices.  The appellant has no dispute that the original mark list and certificates of the respondent were handed over to him at the time of taking her admission by the respondent.  She had discontinued her course during the first semester itself.  12 years have elapsed thereafter.  Her original certificates and mark lists were in the custody of the appellant.  As rightly pointed out by her counsel the prejudice and loss caused to her cannot be assessed or compensated in terms of money. Her chances to join some other course or to apply for a secure job have been shattered.  Though the appellant has also pleaded that he has suffered loss there is no evidence on record to support the said contention.  He has not even cared to mount the box and give evidence on oath in support of his contentions.  Therefore the District Forum has rightly found in favour of the respondent accepting her contentions.  We do not find any ground to take a different view of the matter.  We have carefully perused the order appealed against.  We do not find any infirmity therein warranting an interference with the same in appeal. 

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed.  No costs. 

                                                                     Sd/-

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                               T.S.P. MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                           Sd/-

                                                                                           BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb