By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Complainant's say is that representatives of opposite parties approached complainant at his office at Manjeri and made him believe that if complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,990/- by way of<br /> <br /> Demand Draft favouring opposite party Company they would provide the best computer education<br /> through the branch of T.C.P.S. Which would be opened shortly by them at Manjeri, Malappuram District. They also showed complainant a chart regarding various courses offered by T.C.P.S and the centres they are going to start in which it was particularly sown that in Malappuram District the Centre is proposed at Manjeri. Considering the convenience of going to computer Centre complainant decided to join the Computer Centre that was proposed to be opened by opposite parties at Manjeri and paid Rs.4,990/- vide Demand Draft dated, 19-3-04 to opposite parties. After sending the D/D there was no response from opposite parties. On continuous correspondence by complainant opposite parties sent a cover containing receipt for Rs.4,990/- and a Catalogue. Referring to this Catelogue complainant searched the whole City of Manjeri to find out T.C.P.S. Computer Centre. Complainant could not find any such computer education centre at Manjeri. Thereafter he made several telephone calls to opposite parties and also send letters. There was no satisfactory explanation. Complainant then send a lawyer notice on 13-8-04 demanding refund of Rs.4,990/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Even though the notice was received by opposite parties they neither replied nor did they refund the amount. Complainant alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint claiming refund of Rs.4,990/- along with interest @ 18%, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to both opposite parties from this Forum on 24-11-2004 and the case was posted to 05-01-05. During that time due to vacancy in the post of President in 2003 there was no Sitting of this Forum for a long time. Vakalath for first opposite party was filed by Advocates P.A.Sivarajan, Thrissur and C. Babu, Manjeri. Since there was no sitting the case was adjourned to several dates from the office. This case first came up before the President and then member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.K.T.Sidhique on 16-8-07. Both sides were absent. Member Sri.K.T. Sidhique was holding vakalath for complainant and hence the case was adjourned for settlement in adalath. Thereafter President addressed State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram to transfer the case along with other cases since member was holding vakalath and the post of other member was vacant. Order was received from State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram on the transfer application directing the President to dispose of the cases with the new member who would soon be appointed. The case was then taken upon 28-02-08 since Smt. E. Ayishakutty was appointed as new member. On 28-02-08 notice was again issued to both opposite parties. Thus opposite parties in this case had the privilege of service of notice two times Notice to opposite parties were again served. Opposite party No.2 was absent and set exparte on 02-4-08. Opposite party No.1 was absent and there was no representation on his behalf although the vakalath filed on his behalf was subsisting. No version was filed by first opposite party. The case was again posted for hearing to 17-4-08 after accepting evidence by affidavit and documents on the side of complainant. On 17-4-08 both opposite parties were again absent. Thus there is no defence put forward on the side of opposite parties. Sri.K.T.Sidhique resigned his office as member on 1-03-08 since he was appointed as President of Kasargode District.<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant filed affidavit and Exts.A1 to A5 marked on his behalf. Claim proved. Ext.A1 is the receipt for Rs.4,990/- issued by opposite parties. Ext.A2 and Ext.A3 are brochures. Ext.A4 is the lawyer notice. Thus opposite parties have been sufficiently informed about the grievance of complainant. Still they have opted to ignore and deny refund to complainant which was collected from<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> him without imparting any education. We hold that act of opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice. In our view, in case of unfair trade practice like the present one, the compensation to be awarded has to be exemplary. We consider that an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with refund of Rs.4,990/- would serve justice to complainant.<br /> <br /> 4. In the result, we allow the complaint and order opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.4,990/- (Rupees Four thousand nine hundred and ninety only) along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) together with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 13th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E.. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5<br /> Ext.A1 : Receipt for Rs.4,990/- issued by opposite parties.<br /> Ext.A2 : Brochure.<br /> Ext.A3 : Brochure.<br /> Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice dated, 08-7-04 issued by complainant's <br /> counsel to 1st opposite party.<br /> Ext.A5 : Receipt of lawyer notice (UCP)<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E.. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />