KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO.442/2011

JUDGMENT DATED:16.08.2011

PRESENT:

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

The Joint Director of

Technical Education,

Padmavilasam Road,

East Port, Thiruvananthapuram.               : APPELLANT

(By Adv:Sri.S. Vijayakumaran)

Vs.

1.      Lohitha Alphy James

Palakkatharappil,

Irumbakachola, Kanhirapuzha,

Mannarkkad, Palakkad.

2.      The Principal

CML Carmel Engineering College,

Kunamkara, Ranni,

Pathannamthitta.

                                                                   : RESPONDENTS

3.      Carmel Education Trust

(Believer’s Church Trust)

Represented by its Managing Trustee,

Dr. K.P. Yohannan

Carmel Engineering College

Perunadu.

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

In this appeal, the 2^nd opposite party in CC.58/09 before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta has come up calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.  By the impugned order dt 27-4-11, the 2^nd opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation with 9% interest from  the date of complaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of the order till payment.  The 2^nd opposite party is also at liberty to take appropriate action against the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties for the illegal act committed by them against the complainant.

2.      The case of the complainant is that she had passed the Diploma in Engineering during the year 2008 from Payyannur Women’s College, Kannur and that she applied for Engineering course under lateral entry conducted under the supervision of 2^nd opposite party and the State. The further case is that she had secured 567^th rank in the entrance examination and her seat was confirmed in the 1^st opposite party college and on 31.7.2008 when the complainant went to join the college she was denied the seat.  Alleging deficiency of service against the opposite parties the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1.lakh.

3.      The opposite parties denied the allegations in the complaint and submitted before the Forum that the complainant had to prove the rank regarding lateral entry admission during the year 2008 and further that the complainant never turned up for admission or tendered documents for admission before the 1^st opposite party.  Thus, contending that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The main contention taken by the 2^nd opposite party was that there was no consumer relationship between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party, the present appellant.  It is their case that they had not received any payment or consideration from the complainant and hence the allegations against the 2^nd opposite party/appellant cannot be sustained.  It is also their case that the 2^nd direction of the Forum below to take appropriate action against the 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties cannot be implemented, since, the 2^nd opposite party has no power or authority to take legal action against the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties even if they had committed any illegal activities in the process of admission.  The learned counsel has also submitted before us that Justice P.A.Muhammed Committee constituted at the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the legal authority to take action against the colleges which committed deficiency of service or other illegal modes in the process of admission and collection of fees.

5.      We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/2^nd opposite party.  It seems that the Forum below has not appreciated the above said aspects in its correct perspective.  We also find that the appellant has to be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence in the matter by submitting necessary documents before the Forum.  It is also found that the appeal filed by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties before this Commission as A.446/11 has been allowed and matter remitted back for fresh disposal.  In the back drop of the said facts, it is only just and proper that the 2^nd opposite party is also given an opportunity to contest the matter afresh before the Forum.

In the result the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Forum below for giving opportunity to the 2^nd opposite party/appellant for adducing fresh evidence if any.  The case stands posted before the Forum on 30.9.2011 and the Forum below is directed to issue notice to the parties concerned.

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

VL.