THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 52/2011.
Friday, the 30th day of December, 2011.
Petitioners : 1) Sobha P.R
Paravanparambil House,
Punnathara East P.O
Kidangoor South,
Kottayam.
2) Swarajith P.M.,
--do—
(By Adv. Bino I. Tom)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) NIFE, Pala,
Moozhiyil Building,
Kottaramattom Jn., Pala P.O
Kottayam.
reptd. by its Managing Director,
M.V Thomas,
2) George Thomas Moozhiyil,
Branch Director, NIFE,
Pala P.O, Kottayam.
3) M.V Thomas,
Founder and MD, NIFE
6th Floor, KSHB Complex,
Kattappana.
(By Adv. V.B Unniraj, R.S Geetha)
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member.
The case of the complainants presented on 29..12..2010 are as follows:
The 2nd complainant had joined Fire and Safety Engineering course conducted by the opposite parties. On the assurances given by the opposite parties that immediately after completing the course the candidates should get job opportunities all over India, as well as abroad. The complainant remitted Rs. 32,000/- for the course of fire and safety Engineering. But the opposite parties has not conduct the course properly and they has not provide any training to the 2nd complainant. There was clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants has sustained huge loss and hardships due to the negligent act of the
-2-
opposite parties. The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainants. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared through their counsel and 2nd opposite party has filed version contending as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainants has no locus standi to file this complaint. It is true that the 2nd complainant has joined the Fire and safety course conducted by the opposite parties. Before joining the course the opposite parties had explained the nature and scope of Fire and Safety Course conducted by the opposite parties. The complainants have fully understood nature and scope of the course and the conditions governing the course conducted by the opposite parties. The opposite parties had brought out several advertisements in vernacular dailies in which it is specifically pointed out that no one is guaranteed a job. The opposite parties do not guarantee job to the candidates. In any event it is not open to the complainants to raise any allegations against the opposite parties. Since the 2nd complainant has not regularly attended the classes and the practical training given to the students even after giving repeated opportunities.
The 2nd complainant was admitted to the course on 23..7..2007 in Batch No. FE.03. The 2nd complainant had not attended the classes regularly. Hence the opposite parties informed the 1st complainant the 1st complainant came to the office of the opposite party and assured that the 2nd complainant would attended the classes regularly there after. There after on 14..1..2008 the opposite party informed 1st complainant by letter that unless the 2nd complainant attends the class regularly his registration would be cancelled. There was no response to this letter. Since the 1st complainant had pleaded with the opposite parties to sympathetically consider their
-3-
case the 2nd complainant was again permitted to attend the classes. On 10..6..2008 the complainants together met this opposite party and pleaded with him to permit a 2nd complainant to attend classes. They had also promised this opposite party to pay the arrears of fee in 3 installments. The complainants had also assured this opposite party that the 2nd complainant would attend the theory and practical classes regularly without fail. Therefore the registration of the 2nd complainant was renewed and the 2nd complainant was permitted to complete the course along with F.E.06 Batch. But the 2nd complainant did not attend the class regularly. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The 1st complainant the mother of the 2nd complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced by her marked as Exhibits A1 to A7. The 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exhibits B1 to B3.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties are not conducting the Fire and Safety course both theory and practical properly. According to her the opposite parties are not providing proper training to the complainants during the part of the course.
The 2nd opposite party has taken a strong contention that the 2nd complainant has not attend the classes of the fire and safety courses theory and practical training regularly. According to the opposite parties due to long absence of 2nd complainant opposite party had given another opportunity to him on the request made by him. 2nd complainants course and registration were renewed. Admittedly 2nd complainant had joined the Fire and Safety course and complainants remitted Rs. 30,000/- to
opposite parties. During Cross Examination of PW1 opposite parties put question admitting the remittance of Rs. 30,000/-. From the available evidence and
-4-
documents it can be seen that the opposite parties are not providing proper training to the complainant. Moreover they have not produced any documents to show that they are conducting proper training to the students including complainant. . Hence it can be seen that the opposite parties are failed to prove their stand taken in the version. So, we have no reasons to dis-believe the statements made by the 1st complainants, who is the mother of the 2nd complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows:
We direct opposite parties to returned Rs. 30,000/- to the complainants and pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to remit the award amount. The order not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order toll payment.
Friday the 30th day of December, 2011.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents produced by complainant.
Ext. A1: Copy of receipt Dtd: 24..8..2007 for Rs. 6,000/-.
Ext. A2: Copy of receipt Dtd: 14..8..2007 for Rs. 4,000/-
Ext. A3: Copy of receipt dtd: 23..7..2007 for Rs. 2000/-
Ext. A4: Copy of receipt Dtd: 24..8..2007 for Rs. 2000/-
Ext. A5: Copy of receipt Dtd: 10..6..2008 for Rs. 2,000/-
Ext. A6: Copy of receipt dtd: 11..8..2008 for Rs. 2000/-
Ext. A7: Prospectus issued by opposite parties.
Documents produced by opposite parties
Ext. B1: Copy of Application for admission
Ext. B2: Copy of split up details of fees Dtd: 11..3..2011
Ext. B3: Copy of attendance register.
By order,
Senior Superintendent
