HYDERABAD

F.A.No.24/2007 AGAINST C.C.No.97/2006 DISTRICT  FORUM-I, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Between-

Akula Venkateswara Rao,

H.No.3-92, Rajula Bazar,

Ramavarapadu, Vijayawada-521108.                               ..Appellant/Complainant

And

1. FLT.LT.V.Ganesh Kumar

    Managing Director, Vizag Defence

    Academy, 104 Area, Marripalem,

    Visakhapatnam.

2. Mrs.V.Usha Rani, Principal,

    Priyadarshni College, Vizag Defence Academy,

    104 Area, Marripalem, Viskhapatnam.                          Respondents/Opp.parties.

For the Appellant- Party in person.

For the Respondents-served.

CORAM-THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order-(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble MEMBER)

---

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.97/2006 on the file of District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam, the complainant preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint  are that the  complainant joined his grandson in the opposite parties’ academy on 30-5-2003 by paying a sum of Rs.500/- towards medical test which was conducted prior to admission.  It was a two year intermediate course providing necessary training for selection in the Defence Force.  During October, 2003 the candidate appeared for Naval interview but was declared unfit as his eye sight was 6/9.  The complainant submitted that at the time of medical test during admission into the opposite parties academy, it was informed that the student’s eye sight was 6/6 and the complainant was misled by these results.  The complainant,  being a retired Flying Officer in Indian Air Force, was disappointed that his grandson could not join in the Defence Force.  He submits that he paid an amount of Rs.63,500/- towards different charges and inspite of preparing his grandson for EAMCET in Vijayawada had sent him to Visakhapatnam to the opposite parties college hoping that he would secure a seat in the Defence Services and opposite parties had given a false declaration that his grandson was medically fit at the time of admission which led to the boy losing his seat in the defence force and therefore the complainant seeks refund of the amount paid by him with interest and also compensation and costs.

Opposite parties remained exparte before the District Forum.

The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A21.

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A21 and the pleadings put forward, allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

Though notices were served on the respondents/opposite parties, they failed to appear before this Commission.

The party-in-person was present and submitted that he was a defence employee and having served for 35 years in the defence services and  wanted his grandson to be employed in the Defence Service and  therefore joined him in the intermediate college belonging to the respondents, who advertised that they train the students for admission to defence services.   The student had secured 72percent in 10^th class and the admission to the respondents academy is subject to medical test and a fee of Rs.500/- was also prescribed for the medical test.  It is the case of the appellant that the student was declared fit in all respects and the admission was granted by the respondents but whereas when the student appeared for Naval selection, it revealed that his eye power was 6/9 instead of 6/6 as disclosed by the respondents college and hence his grandson was declared unfit for Indian Naval Service (‘INS’ for short).  It is the case of the appellant that had the respondents’ college conducted the medical test properly without misleading him, the boy would have prepared for EAMCET and he would have taken coaching and joined some other course.  We find force in the contention of the appellant that having declared that the admission into the college is only for medically fit candidates and having collected Rs.500/- for the medical test and having declared the candidate as medically fit to appear for the defence service, the act of the respondents in not having conducted the medical examination in a proper manner and giving incorrect result to the candidate is an act of deficiency of service.  On perusal of the material on record, we observe that the respondents have declared the appellant’s grandson herein as one of the candidates, who got selected in the defence service along with his photograph at serial number 305 of their advertisement whereas in reality the candidate was declared unfit even to take admission into INS because of his eye sight.  This act of the respondents in putting the photograph of the candidate as if he has passed the exam also amounts to unfair trade practice.  It is pertinent to note that in the advertisement of the respondents, it is stated that the registration fees is Rs.500/- (Rs.400/- refund for medical failure candidates) which in the instant case has not been refunded and the candidate was proved to be medically fit and his admission was taken into intermediate college.  On perusal of Exs.A1 to A5, it reveals that an amount of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.14,000/-, Rs.19,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- in all a total of Rs.63,500/- was paid.  The District Forum while observing that there is deficiency of service held that the appellant cannot be entitled for refund of the total fee collected under Exs.A1 to A5.  Since the appellant’s grandson was admitted on 30-5-2003 and appeared for Naval interview in October, 2003, we are of the considered view that the amounts paid towards tuition fee covered by Exs.A1,  A3, A4, A5 and 50percent of the accommodation i.e. (50 percent of Rs.14,000/-) i.e. Rs.7,000/- covered under Ex.A2 totalling Rs.56,000/-  has to be refunded to the appellant together with interest at 9percent p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till the date of realization. It is pertinent to note that the student who had nurtured hopes to join the National Defence Academy and has chosen this college only with the specific focus of being trained towards the specialized exam and hence declaring this candidate as medically fit without conducting proper eye test necessitating the student to be disappointed on his being declared as medically unfit for taking the exam, amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency of service.  Therefore, a compensation of Rs.5,000/- is being awarded towards mental agony suffered by the appellant while confirming the costs of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the District Forum.

In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified by enhancing the amount awarded from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.56,000/- and also awarding interest at 9percent p.a.  from the date of filing of complaint till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                       PRESIDENT.    LADY MEMBER.    MALE MEMBER

JM                                                                       Dated 6^th February, 2008.