<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 27th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1911/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.A.G.Mutalik Desai,Aged 56 years,House No.2, 2nd Cross,Savanur Complex,Keshwapur,Hubli – 23.Advocate – Smt.Vidya JahagirdarV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri Jia Jain,Committee Trading Pvt. Ltd.,Mats School of Business,319, 17th Main,J.P Nagar, 6th Phase,Bangalore – 560 078.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the fees paid along with interest and also pay compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant’s daughter Miss.Rashmi took admission at OP College and also joined the hostel on 21.06.2007 so as to promote her education for the academic year 2007-09. At the time of joining the hostel she paid Rs.30,000/- and on 27.07.2007 through D.D another Rs.10,000/- is paid. Subsequently within a span of two months complainant expressed her inability to continue the said education on health ground. That is why she sought for the refund of Rs.40,000/-. Complainant was willing to for go Rs.10,000/- towards her stay in the said hostel for two months. She made immediate request to OP to refund remaining Rs.30,000/-. On negotiation OP agreed to refund only Rs.15,000/- by the end of February or March 2008 but failed to do so. Even OP failed to refund the caution deposit of Rs.8,000/-. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant went in futile. Complainant issued legal notice on 04.08.2008, again there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP is duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that his daughter Miss.Rashmi joined OP institution to promote her studies for the academic year 2007-09. She joined the OP hostel on 21.06.2007 and paid Rs.30,000/- subsequently on 27.07.2007 she paid another Rs.10,000/-. OP acknowledged the receipt of the same. Thereafter some how complainant didn’t feel comfortable, due to ill health she was forced to discontinue the said course. Then she immediately requested the OP to refund Rs.30,000/- after deducting Rs.10,000/- towards her stay at the hostel for two months, but her requests went in futile. That is why she caused legal notice to OP on 04.08.2008. Again there was no response. Copy of the legal notice, demand draft copy are produced along with complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to drawn an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. The letter addressed by the OP speaks to the fact that out of the caution deposit of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8,000/- refundable but still that amount is not paid to the complainant when she discontinued her education and left the hostel.<br /> <br /> 6. OP having retained the said amount even after the complainant having vacated the hostel accrued the wrongful gain to itself thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant. It would have been more fair on the part of the OP to return at least 50% of the amount paid by the complainant, but they have not considered the same. For no fault of her complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances she is entitled for the certain relief. In our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.15,000/- + Rs.8,000/- caution deposit and pay some litigation cost. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.23,000/- to the complainant and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br />