Date of filing    : 07-12-2013

                                                                     Date of order   :  06-05-2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.289/2013

                      Dated this, the  6^th    day of  May   2014

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL                               : MEMBER

Manojkumar, S/o.Late.Kunhikannan,             : Complainant

Mottanchira House, Poochakkad,

Po.Keekan, Hosdurg Taluk

(Adv.P.Narayanan, Hosdurg)

M.M.Lari,                                                              : Opposite party

Columbus Maritime Training Institute,

Itrat Nagar, Chanepada, Po.Khardi West,

Shashapur.Dist. Thane. 412 304

(Exparte)

                                                                        O R D E R

SMT.P.RAMADEVI, PRESIDENT

            The facts of the complaint in brief is that the complainant’s neighbour one Nikhil Raj  was trying to get an admission in Maritime  Training Institute and the opposite party  M.M Lari, Columbus  Maritime Training Institute approached the complainant and offered to provide admission in Columbus Maritime Training Institute and demanded a sum of Rs.1,66,050/- by way of admission fee and tuition fee.  The complainant sent DD for Rs.1,00,050/- from Pallikkera Service Co-operative Bank Ltd and the opposite party received the same and thereafter the complainant paid another Rs.61,000/- to the opposite party on 22-12-2011.  As per the agreement the opposite party has to provide training to Nikhil Raj from 1^st July 2012.  But opposite party failed to give admission to Nikhil Raj eventhough he has received  the consideration for the  allotment of second and that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief.  Here the complainant submit that he has already filed a complaint before this Forum against the opposite party and the same is dismissed for default.

2.         On receipt of notice from the Forum the opposite party has not turned up, hence the name of opposite party called absent, set exparte.

3.         Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 and A2 marked.  Complainant filed notes of arguments.  On going through the notes of arguments and on perusal of the documents the following issues raised for consideration.

            1 Whether the complainant has any locusstandi to file this complaint?

            2 If there is any deficiency in service on the side of opposite party?

4.         Before going through the  merits of the case we have looked in to the fact that whether the complainant has any locusstandi to file this complaint.

5.         Here the aggrieved party is one Nikhil Raj he is none other than the neighbour of the complainant.  The admission to the opposite party’s institute is for the above said Nikhil Raj.  The alleged service by opposite party is denied to Nikhil Raj and not to the complainant.  The only thing done by the complainant is that  he has sent the money for and on behalf of one Nikhil Raj. The complainant has no consumer relation with opposite party since he has not availed any service from opposite party.  Here the Nikhil Raj has not given any authorization to the complainant to file this complaint for and on behalf of Nikhil Raj.

            In Ram Niwas Soni V Vaish Model Sr.Sec.School the Hon’ble National Commission observed that consumer-locusstandi to file complaint-Excess amount  of fees charged in admission- complaint filed by complainant on behalf of his Major son without any authorization was not maintainable and complainant did not fall within purview of consumer (2013 II CPJ Page 396)

            The Hon’ble National Commission decided in Amitha Sharmer V BHEL (2013, II CPJ Page 505) that petitioner has not been authorized by her husband to file complaint on his behalf, complainant is not a consumer.

            From the above decisions it is seen that the close relations of the aggrieved parties are not in a position to file a complaint for their behalf without any authorization.  Here the complainant is only a neighbour of one Nikhil Raj and he has no locusstandi to file this complaint.  In this  case  the complainant has not stated in his complaint that he is filing this complaint for and on behalf of the said Nikhil Raj.

            On considering   all facts stated above we are of the opinion that the complainant has no locusstandi to file this  complaint since he is not authorized to file this complaint.  Hence he is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act.  The 1^st issue is found against the complainant.  If the complainant is a not a consumer, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  Therefore the complaint is dismissed as not  maintainable.

MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1.20-09-2011 photocopy of DD for an amount of Rs.1,00,050/-

A2.06-01-2011 Certificate issued by OP to complainant.

  MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Pj/