Date of filing : 08-08-2011
Date of order : 22-12-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.199/2011
Dated this, the 22nd day of April 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Nasarulla.C.H, S/o.Ummerkutty, } Complainant
Pallam House, Po.Ariyappady,
Kasaragod Taluk.
(Adv. Bharath Raj.A.K, Kasaragod)
1. Mohammad, Managing Director, } Opposite parties
G.Tech Computer Education,
Al-Ameen Complex, New Bus Stand,
Badiadka, Po. Peradala, Kasaragod.
(Adv. K.Abdul Nasir, Kasaragod)
2. The Managing Director,
G.Tech Computer Education
Old Press Club, Kasaragod.
(Adv.A.N.Ashokkumar, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Bereft of unncessaries the case of the complainant is as follows:
On 19-08-2010 complainant joined for HDCHN (Honors Diploma in Computer Hardware and Net Work) course conducted by opposite party No.1. The duration of the course was 12 months and the total fee payable due to a special offer was `8722/-. Complainant remitted `2500/- as term fee. On 30-11-2010 complainant paid `1000/- as balance fee. The complainant noticed that there was no teacher to give training for the course hence he made complained to opposite party No.1. Therefore opposite party No.1 promised the complainant to transfer him to another branch of G-Tech computer at Kasaragod i.e. opposite party No.2. With respect to the fee, opposite party No.1 told the complainant that he will transfer all his papers to opposite party No.2 and directed him to continue his study with opposite party No.2 on payment of balance fee only. But when the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 they collected registration fee `250/-. Complainant paid the said amount on the belief that the said amount will be deducted from the balance fee `5222/-. The complainant continued the course with opposite party No.2. On 22-06-2011 opposite party No.2 demanded `8500/- towards the fee for the course. While the complainant stated that he is continuing the course he attended with opposite party No.1, the complainant was sent out of the class since he was unable to pay the full course fee. When he contacted opposite party No.1 they instructed him to pay the full course fee to opposite party No.2. Because he is unable to pay the full course fee he discontinued the course and filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties appeared and filed their respective versions. According to opposite party No.1 complainant was admitted to HDCHN course. The actual course fee was `12,000/- but he was allowed a discount of 36% and the total fee payable was `7680/- with tax `791/-. Complainant in June 2011 stated that he is willing to continue the course at G-Tech, Kasaragod i.e. with opposite party No.2 which is near to his residence. The opposite party No.1 agreed for the proposal and agreed to transfer all the papers relating to his course to opposite party No.2. But complainant approached opposite party No.2 and got admitted in a some other course. Hence the transfer of documents has not arisen. The opposite party No.1 is ready and willing to allow the complainant to resume and complete the course with them provided the complainant pay the balance fee. The complainant left the institution to escape from his legal liabilities to pay the balance course fee to opposite party No.1. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. According to opposite party No.2 complainant admitted to A+ and N+ course not on transfer basis. The duration of the said course is 6 months and the tuition fee i.e. `10,000/- plus `10.3% service tax. Out of which `3000/- should be remitted as down payment. But the complainant did not remit the fee. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant examined as PW1. Exts A1 & A2 marked on his side. He faced cross-examination by the learned counsel for opposite party No.1 & Opposite party No.2.
5. PW1 deposed that he asked opposite partyNo.1 to complete his course immediately since he want to go abroad and want to study in some other centres. So opposite party No.1 instructed him to approach opposite party No.2. But opposite party No.2 after registration asked to remit the fee as he is unable to pay the fee he was sent out from the class.
6. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 PW1 deposed that the duration of the course of opposite party No.1 was 12 months and that of opposite party No.2 was 6 months.
7. PW1 further deposed that in March 2011 he demanded opposite party No.1 to complete his course immediately since he want to go abroad. At that time opposite party No.1 told that there is no staff and he can be transferred to opposite party No.2 and they are also having the same course. At that time 6 months course was already over.
8. From the evidence adduced by PW1 it is come out that complainant himself asked the opposite party No.2 to complete the course immediately which is having a duration of 12 months. Complainant want to go abroad immediately after completing the course. Perhaps that may be a reason for joining in another course with opposite party No.2 which is having only 6 months duration. It is also come out in evidence that as against the full course fee of `8722/- he remitted only `3500/- for attending the course for 6 months. In such circumstances we can not attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
The complaint therefore fails and hence it is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. G-Info Students Card. Reg.No.486076
A2.19-06-2011 Receipt issued by G-Tec Computer Education.
PW1.Nasirula.C.H.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
Pj/
