KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 221/2007
JUDGMENT DATED : 31.07.2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
1 Sunil Nautiyal (Manager),
Planet EDU 101. Greenwood Plaza,
Greenwood City, Sector 45
Gurgaon
Hariyana – 12 001,
2. Ron Raj(Executive Officer)
Planet EDU. G. 295
Panampilly Nagar,Behind Hotel Avenue Center,
Kochi – 36.
( Rep. by Adv. Sri. P. Sunil Nair)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS
Jose Kuriakose
Nelliyattu House
Neyyassery P.O.,
Thodupuzha
JUDGMENT
SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF Ernakulam in C.C. 508/2006. The appellants are the opposite parties in the above O.P. prefer this appeal from the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The Forum below directed the opposite parties to refund Rs, 5,125/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made and also to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- within on the period of 13 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complainant is a candidate for the examination conducted by the second opposite party.
2. The second opposite party is the branch office of the first opposite party. The complainant remitted fees for IELTS test registration. The complainant could not attend the examination due to severe viral fever with Leukopenia. He was admitted in St. Marry’s hospital from 19.10.2006 to 29.10.2006 as in patient and advised for taking 15 days bed rest. The complainant submitted a request on 25.10.2006 for adjournment of the examination along with medical certificate and medical bills as the complainant could not write the examination he entitled for refunds of Rs. 5,125/- which the opposite party has not paid. The prayer is to directs the opposite party to refund the amount with interest and cost.
3. The opposite parties filed their written version and contented that first and second opposite parties for manager and executive officer respectively of Planet education company registered in Hariyana responsible for administering and managing the International English Language Testing System IELTS. The complainant is paid so bad for non- jointer of necessary parties. The opposite parties are only representatives of Planet Education they contented that the complaint is not maintainable because there is no relation ship “consumer and service that provided within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. They challenged the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complainant by the Forum below. They contented that the complainant presented his application on 25.10.2006 for cancellation of the days on 26.10.2006 and on the very same date. The rejection of the application was engaged to him there is no deficiency of the service .
4. The evident of Ext. A1 to A5 the series are the documents marked by the complainant and examined the Dw1 on his true affidavit.
5. The Forum below heard the counsels of both parties and perused the evidence and found that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties then allowed the complaint. The Forum below answered the questions arising for the considerations;
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the Forum below is competent to try this case due
to the lack of territorial jurisdiction?
6. On this day this appeal came before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent are present.
7. Heard both sides and counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the ground mentioned by the complainant for the non appearance for the examination conducted by the appellant is not legally sustaint. He contented that the sickness etc. are a cooked story. The counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellants also arranged every arrangement by spending a huge amount for conducting the examination only for the complainant. The absence of the complainant caused a huge loss to the appellant they arranged rented vedeos, Vedeo Confrance arrangements such as modern communication system for conducting his own examination. The counsel for the appellant denied that A3 , A4 and A5 series. He contented that they are only the copies not attested by anybody. It cannot be taken as a solid evidence according to them. The complainant candidate deliberately absent in the examination and he taken it as an anticipatory defense for further legal proceedings from the part of the appellant but the counsel for the respondent /complainant argued with the Ext. A2 to A5 series are the marked documents. So it is an evidence. It can be taken as a solid proof of evidence and if necessary original certificate shall be produced. But this commission heard in detail and perused the entire case records and seeing the Ext. A2 to A5 are the copies of the documents marked by the Forum below. But the mere marking of the documents is not al all a solid proof of evidence and the validity of the documents depends upon its evidentatary value. What is the harm to the complainant who have produced the originals of this documents which was under in his custody. The counsel submitted that given an opportunity to produce it before the Forum below. Hence prayed remand the case back to the Forum below for the fresh disposal. The another question of law is whether the dispute in connection with the educational matters is coming under the preview of the Consumer Protection Act. or not?
8. The latest decision of the apex court and the decision of the Hon’ble High court, the educational matters are not coming under the preview of the Consumer Protection Act. But in this decision there is a settled position of law is that the above decision of the Apex court is that applicable only in the course conducted by the sovereign authorities like University etc. This course IELTS. Conducted by the appellants on behalf of some other agencies these are not the statutory body . The facts of the above cases are different from the facts of this case. Any way the original copies of the Ext. A1 to A5 series are necessary for the fair disposal of this case. It is better to remand back this case to the Forum below for fresh disposal.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and set aside the order passed by the Forum below. This case is remanded back to the Forum below for the fresh disposal after given opportunities to both side to adduce fresh and documentary evidence. The Forum below is directed to dispose the case as early as possible. Both parties are directed to suffer there own respective costs.
The points of the appeal answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
