ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

            Complaint for  getting direction to pay   damages of Rs.50,000/- compensation and cost.

          The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The 2^nd opp.party is the Admin istrative office of the 1^st opp.party.  On 8.1.2008 the complainant approached seeking admission in G-Operator Court.   The 1^st oopp.party collected an amount of Rs.1,250/- from the complainant on various heads.   The complainant started studies on  9.1.2008 and ceased to continue the course of 11.1.2008.   The complainant has studied only three days.    Due to the poor coaching and misbehavior of the 1^st opp.party the complainant abandoned to continue the course and the fact has been conveyed to the 1^st opp.party on the same day.   The complainant requested the 1^st opp.party to refund the fees collected but the 1^st opp.party was reluctant to do so and on the other hand he harassed the complainant mentally  and also try to manhandle the complainant and her husband with the some gundas.    The legal notice is issued by  the 1^st opp.party only to escape from the claim of the3 complainant.  The receipt for fees collected was issued only on  13.2.2008 after repeats  demand and pressure and on the same day she sent the legal notice  As the complainant asked for the refund of the fees, the 1^st opp.party was in enimical terms with the complainants.    There is deficiency in rendering service.  The complainant suffered mental agony and damages is assessed at Rs.50,000/- as the 1^st opp.party harassed the complainant and her husband mentally and physically.  Hence the complaint.

          The 1^st opp.party filed version contending, interalia that the complainant herein sought admission in “G” Operator Course on 8.1.2008.  The 1^st opp.party collected an amount of Rs.250/- as registration fees vide Registration No.167181.  Registration fees and is not refundable at any circumstances.   After two days  the course fee of Rs.1000/- has been remitted by the complainant with receipt No.269568 and the complainant started studies on 9.1.2008 and she was regularly attended the course upto 17.1.2008.  On 17.1.2008 the 1^st opp.party checked the computer system on thorough check up the 1^st opp.party could be able to find out the software was damaged only because of the mishandling of the complainant.    The 1^st opp.party instructed his office staff to invite the complainant through telephone for attending the regular computer classes.  But the complainant was willfully evade from attending the computer classes. The complainant never requested for the repayment of the course fee of Rs.1000/- paid on 11.1.2008.  The  1^st  opp.party sent a legal notice dt. 13.2.2008demanding the compensation for damage caused by the complainant to the 1^st opp.party be her mishandling of computer system. The 1^st opp.party never approached the complainant with enimical terms.   The  The 1^st opp.party never tried to threaten the complainant and her husband mentally or by using obscene words.    There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opp.party.  Hence the 1^st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

2.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined.  Ext. P1 to P6 are marked

No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.parties

POINTS:

2^nd opp.party though served with a notice, chose not to filed version disputing or denying the averment made in the complaint.  1^st opp.party though filed version did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove their case that the complainant had studied their institution more than 7 days and  she had damaged the software of the computer.  First opp.party has only cross examined the complainant but could not discredit the complainant’s case.

          We have carefully perused the complaint, affidavit and documents filed by the complainant.   From the documents and evidenceof PW.1 and 2 it is seen that the 1^st opp.party had not refund the fees of the complainant and the opp.parties contention that the complainant had damaged the software of the computer of opp.party’s institution is false.  From the entire evidence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the side of opp.parties.  Complainant’s other contention is  that when the complainant requested the 1^st opp.party to refund the fees collected, the 1^st opp.party was reluctant to do so and on the other hand he harassed the complainant, mentally and tried to  man handle the  complainant and her husband with some gundas.  For proving the said contention complainant did not produce any material such as copy of police complaint or medical certificate etc. Without producing any evidence mere examination of PW.2  and averment in the complaint is not sufficient.  By considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the side of opp.party and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

  In the result the complaint is allowed.  Opp.parties are directed to give Rs.5000/- to the complainant  as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost to the proceedings.   The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

            Dated this the    day of June, 2010.

                                                                                    .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant.

PW.1. – Jyothy

PW.2. -  Chandrakumar

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Photocopy of Bit notice

P2. – Photocopy of receipts

P3. – Advocate notice dt. 13.2.2008

P4. – Reply notice dt. 23.3.2008

P5. – Postal receipt

P6. – Acknowledgement card.