BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, GADAG.

COMPLAINT NO. 21/2015
 

Date of Order 29^th day of December, 2015

   P r e s e n t:

Smt. C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar, B.A. LLB(Spl)          :  President

Sri. B.S.Keri, B.A. LLB (Spl)                                  :  Member

Smt. J.S.Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB (Spl)                         :  Lady Member

Complainant(s)      :        Manjunath S/o Hanamangouda Patil,

Age: 28 Years, Sambapur, Tq & Dist:

                                      Gadag.

V/s

Opposite Party    :          G.Kotresh,

                                        The Managing Director,

                                        Shri Kotreshwar Educational

  & Charitable Trust (R), Gadag,

  Godakindi Hospital Upstairs, 1^st Floor,

                                        Behind Post Office, Gadag.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT SMT. C.H. SAMIUNNISA ABRAR

The complainant herein has filed this complaint against the opponent claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

         2.    The Averments of the complaint in brief are:

That the complainant had taken admission for I year  B.Sc (CBZ) in Kuvempu University as a correspondence course through Sri Kottureshwara Education and Charitable trust ® Gadag by paying a fees of Rs. 5000/- on 31.12.2013. The complainant approached the Opponent to fill the application for the preferred examination in specified time the opponent had failed to supply the examination application nor had he permitted him to appear in the exam. In spite of several requests the opponent had drag the days nor replied properly from which the future of the complainant had ruined.

3.    The complainant had prayed that opponent is liable to refund the amount of Rs.5,000-00, Rs2,00,000-00 spoiling his future, Rs.3,000-00 towards Travelling charges, Rs.3,000-00 towards the fee of the notice and     Rs.10,000-00 towards the cost of the proceedings.

          4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this forum, which had been served to the opponent the opponent had failed to appear before this forum in person or through his advocate. Hence it is ex-parte

    5.   On perusal of the materials, placed by the complainant following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves that there is a deficiency in service by the opponent?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
3. What order?

Our findings to the

Point No 1: Affirmative

Point No 2: Partially Affirmative

Point No 3: as per the final Order

R E A S O N S

         6.  POINT NO.1 & 2:  Since both the points are Inter linked I considered both the points together to avoid the repetition of facts.

          7.  The complainant had filed this complaint alleging that the opponent had collect a fee of Rs. 5,000-00 for the admission of B.Sc. in Correspondence through Kuvempu University. In stipulated time when complainant approached opponent to fill the examination form, the opponent had not supplied the form, on several requests the opponent had not responded properly so the complainant had issued a legal notice through his counsel to refund the fee amount of Rs.5,000-00 along with the compensation of
Rs.2,00,000-00 towards spoiling of his one year and other expenses.

          8.   Perused the records, the case of the Complainant is that he had approached the opponents institution for the admission to 1st year B.Sc. (CBZ) in correspondence in Kuvempu University, through opponent institution Sri Kottureshwara Education and Charitable Trust ® Gadag, which is a registered educational and Charitable Trust which is a study centre Directorate of  Correspondence courses of Kuvempu University. The documents produced by the complainant i.e., fee paid receipt, the pamphlet published by the opponent calling the students to get the admission for the correspondence courses, clearly discloses that the opponent had received a sum of Rs. 5,000-00 towards the course of B.Sc., (1st year), the Opponent had not answered the notice sent by the complainant nor he had responded to the notice issued by the forum the notices had been undelivered by a note “NOT CLAIMED” by this we can assume that the opponent had neglected the notices knowing well that the complainant had approached the Forum for the justice.

9.  Evidence placed before the forum establishes that opponent had received a sum of Rs.5,000-00 from the complainant for the above said course. The opponent failed to discharge his service and reacted irresponsibly. Hence the opponent had made deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Thus keeping these in observation the complainant is liable to receive the amount paid to the opponent along with the compensation. We answer in affirmative to Point No.1 and partly affirmative to Point No.2.

10.  POINT NO. 3 In view of our findings on the above points, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed. In the result, we pass the following :

//O R D E R//

1.       This complaint is partly allowed.

2.       Opponent is directed to refund the amount of Rs.5,000-00 (Rupees five thousand) along with interest @ 10% pa from the date of payment till realization to the complainant.

3.       Further to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000-00 (Rupees twenty thousand) to the complainant on account of deficiency of service.

4.       Further, it is ordered that opponent is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,000-00 (Rupees one thousand) towards the litigation expenses to the complainant.

5.       Further, it is ordered that opponent has to comply this order within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which he has to pay 12% interest pa till realization.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 29^th day of December 2015).

              Member                          Member                      President