Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/261/2018

K.Karrupaiah, and another - Complainant(s)

Versus

L. Sivakumar, S/o G. Lakshmanan, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. K.P.C. Mogan

13 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE        Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL        MEMBER

 

F.A. No.261/2018

(Against the Order dt.17.04.2018 in C.C. No.379/2013 on the file of the

                                                        D.C.D.R.C., Coimbatore)           

 

DATED THE 13^th  DAY OF MARCH 2023

1. K. Karruppaiah,

6/3/95, TBN Road,

No.MIG-1, House No.B-110,

Palani Chetti Patti,

Theni.      

 

2. K. Karruppaiah,

Hotel Sri Krishna Vilas,

No.43, Old Post Office Road,

Near Collector’s Office,

Coimbatore – 641 018.                                                      .. Appellants/Opposite parties.

- Versus -

L. Sivakumar,

S/o. Mr. G. Lakshmanan,

C-301, Srivari Mansarovar Apartment,

Uppilipalayam  Post,

Coimbatore – 641 015.                                                       .. Respondent /Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellants  / Opposite parties : M/s. K.P.C. Mogan

Counsel for Respondent  / Complainant              : M/s. Arunkumar

           

This appeal coming before us for final hearing today on 13.03.2023 and on hearing the arguments of Appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order in open court :-

ORDER

Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER             

          This appeal has been preferred by the opposite parties as against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore.

1.         The factual background culminating  in to  appeal is as follows:-

The complainant’s son passed the +2 examination in the year 2008-2009.  The complainant wants his son to join in a medical college.  The 1^st opposite party who is having his business at the 2^nd opposite party address assured the complainant the he will get a medical seat for his son for which, he requested the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.  Allured by the promise, the complainant paid two Demand Draft for Rs.1,00,000/- each and also paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash.  But to his shock and surprise, the complainant’s son did not get the medical seat.  Hence, he requested the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.   The opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- and it was returned for want of sufficient amount.   Hence, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed this complaint claiming Rs.4,00,000/- towards refund and further claiming compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

 

2.       The opposite party filed his written version stating that he never promised the complainant to get a medical seat for his son.  Even if there is any agreement, it is an illegal one.   There was a loan transaction between the complainant and the opposite party.  To get the loan amount and circumvent the other legal remedies this complaint is filed falsely and it is liable to be dismissed.

 

3.       The District Commission after perusal of the proof affidavits and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 direct the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with 9% interest.

 

4.       Aggrieved by the above order, this appeal has been filed on the following grounds that the order of the District Consumer Commission is erroneous in nature.  the District Consumer Commission wrongly decided that the contract as alleged is illegal but wrongly granted the relief of Rs.4,00,000/-.  Hence, we requested this Commission to allow this appeal.  When this case is posted today, for appearance of the respondent and filing of written arguments, no representation was made on behalf of the respondent.   For the past several hearings, the respondent failed to appear.   Hence, arguments on the side of respondent is closed.  Perused the written arguments of the appellant and we passed the following judgement.

 

5.       It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties approached the complainant and promised the complainant to get a seat in Kilpauk Medical College on payment of Rs.4,00,000/-.  Believing his representation, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- but his son did not get any seat in the MBBS Course.  So he filed this case alleging deficiency in service.  The opposite party alleged the contract itself is illegal and requested to dismiss the complaint.

 

 

6.       The points for consideration is:

1. Whether the contract of service is legal and enforceable one?
2. Whether the appeal is to be allowed or not?

7.       Point Nos.1 & 2:-

Admittedly, the contract of service engaged by the complainant with the opposite party is to get a seat in the Government Medical College on payment of certain amount.  Admittedly, the opposite parties did not posses/ own any medical college.   The opposite parties are not authorized either by the Government or by the Medical Colleges to collect the amount for providing seat in the medical colleges.  When there is no legal authority for the opposite party to receive the amount for getting a seat then the payment cannot be considered as a legal consideration or legal service charge.  It is not the case of the complainant that their agreement for payment for Rs.4,00,000/- and for getting a seat in a Government college is a valid and legal agreement.  This agreement cannot be enforced before any court of law.   For an illegal contract any court is not obliged to grant degree in favour of any person to the contract.  The District Commission is also rightly found the above contract between the complainant and opposite parties is an illegal one.   Having found so, the District Commission   ought to have dismissed the complaint.   There is no contract for any legal service.  When there is no legal services, then there is no question of deficiency in services.  When there is no question of deficiency in service, the Consumer act itself is not applicable to the facts of this case.   So, the District Commission excise jurisdiction beyond its power and array itself as a civil court and order to refund the payment of Rs.4,00,000/-.  So the award is erroneous which warrants our interference.  Hence, we set aside the award and allow the appeal without costs.

In the result,

1. This appeal is allowed.
2. The Order dt.17.04.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore mad in C.C. No.379/2013 is hereby set aside and the said Consumer Complaint is also dismissed.
3. There is no order as to costs.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDING JUDL.MEMBER

    (RVP)                                                                                         (S.K.)

 

 

KIR /TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2023.