By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an Order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,78,000/- with interest at 18% from 20.07.2013 till the date of payment of amount to the complainant and return back the certificates entrusted to the opposite parties and to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The 1^st opposite party approached the complainant's parents and assured a seat for B Tech Chemical Engineering at KSRM college, Kadappa, Andrapradhesh. The complainant's parents then approached the Principal and as per the instructions of Principal, the complainant's father had paid Rs.78,000/- on 20.07.2013. The complainant had submitted all original certificates with the principal. After that, the complainant did not have any communication from the college. The complainant had submitted SSLC Book, Board of Higher Secondary Examination, Migration Certificate, Course cum Conduct Certificate, TC etc... The opposite party have not given any information about the opening of classes to the complainant. At last complainant came to know that the admission was already closed and classes were started, then the complainant and father went to opposite party No.2 and demanded to return back the money and certificate, the opposite party No.2 is not willing to return back the money and certificates. The opposite parties not settled the claim of complainant so far. The acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to opposite parties and opposite party No.2 filed version. Opposite party No.1's notice served on 05.04.2014 but opposite party No.1 did not appear and opposite party No.1 is set ex-parte. In the version of opposite party No.2, opposite party No.2 contented that there is no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum, District Forum Kadappa had jurisdiction and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. More over, the complainant with her parents approached this opposite party for admission in to 1^st B Tech Chemical Engineering and accordingly on giving admission the complainant has paid of Rs.78,100/- towards tuition fee for the 1^st year 2013-14 on 20.07.2013. But for the reasons best known to the complainant she did not prosecute her course. More over, the opposite party No.2 stated that the complainant Nimisha. N. Gopalan put in writing on 03.09.2013 that she is unable to joining the college of this opposite party, stating that the political conditions prevailing in the state of Andra Pradesh is not good. On 03.09.2013 the complainant approached the opposite party to get back Tuition fees remitted. Opposite party informed that tuition fee will not be refunded and all the certificates are returned back and acknowledged by complainant. So the complaint is not bonafide that having taken back the certificates again alleging and praying for return of certificates back. Hence there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.2.

4. On going through the complaint, documents, version of opposite party No.2, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?.

2. Relief and Cost.

5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the receipt of payment of Tuition Fee of Rs.78,100/- dated 20.07.2013 issued by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 only filed version but not adduced oral evidence and not marked documents. Opposite party No.2 send the photocopy of a document which is alleged to be written and submitted by the complainant. But that document is only a photocopy and opposite party No.2 did not take any steps to mark the original of that document. Moreover, on going through the version of opposite party No.2, it is found that there is no specific denial by opposite party No.2 in the tune that opposite party No.1 is not their agent. The specific case of complainant is that opposite party No.1 being the agent of opposite party No.2 approached the complainant for admission in opposite party No.2's college. Opposite party No.1 is set ex-parte. The complainant prayed for refund of tuition fee along with original certificates submitted to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 states that certificates are already returned back. But no cogent and convincing evidence is produced by opposite party No.2 to prove it.

6. The Forum found that opposite party No.1 is the agent of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is residing in the jurisdiction of the Forum and hence the Forum have power to entertain the complaint. Since opposite party No.2 received a huge amount as tuition fee, it is the obligation of opposite party No.2 to inform the complainant in writing about the starting of class, especially the complainant is a student from outside state. Moreover, in the version of opposite party No.2, absolutely there is no whisper to the effect that the classes are started without filling a seat left by the complainant and loss sustained to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2's version is silent with respect to the starting of class by filling or non-filling of the seat. Opposite party No.2 miserably failed to prove their contention. So by analyzing the entire evidence and documents, the Forum found that the complainant is entitled to get back the tuition fee remitted by her along with original documents submitted by her. The Forum opine that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 in dealing the matter. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 and 2 is directed to return Rs.78,100/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Thousand and One Hundred only) to the complainant along with 12% interest for the same from the date of deposit till realization. Again opposite party No.2 is directed to return the original documents submitted by the complainant with opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 and 2 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party No.1 and 2 shall comply the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of November 2014.

Date of Filing: 26.03.2014

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Nimisha. N. Gopalan (Proof Affidavit). Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Receipt. Dt:20.07.2013.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.