BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 102/2010 Filed on 31.03.2010

Dated : 30.07.2010

Complainants:

1. G. Rajendran Nair, R.R. Villa, Sreekrishna Nagar, Pulayanarcotta, Thuruvikkal P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Reenaraj, D/o Rajendran Nair, residing at ..do..

(By adv. Vilappil G. Sreedharan Nair)

Opposite parties :

1. Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences, represented by its Chairman K. Velayudhan Nair, Kulasekharam, K.K. District.

    

2. Dr. Rema V. Nair, Director, Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences, Kulasekharam, K.K. District.

This O.P having been heard on 02.07.2010, the Forum on 30.07.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

1^st opposite party is a trust constituted for the noble purpose of rendering social services in the field of higher education and health etc. It runs a medical institution at Kulasekharam conducting courses interalia for Dental Sciences etc. Complainants with the idea of becoming a dentist by the 2^nd complainant, approached the opposite parties during 2000 to get admission to the course of Dental Sciences, and after discussion by both, opposite parties, agreed to give admission to the 2^nd complainant on condition to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as what was then called capitation fee or donation of which Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the representative of the opposite parties at the house of the petitioners at Trivandrum and later paid the balance amounts on instalments and accordingly admission was given to the 2^nd complainant and class started in the month of January 2000. Petitioners also paid to the opposite parties a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as fees for one year and Rs. 25,000/- as caution deposit, and Rs. 3,000/- each as registration fee and cost of materials. Thus a total of Rs. 5,06,000/- was paid to them. Some of these payments were noted by the official of the opposite parties in the piece of paper now in the possession of the petitioners. Immediately after the commencement of classes in the college, due to the change of atmosphere in the college and the hostel, there developed a mental depression to the 2^nd complainant resulting discontinuation of her study in the college in the month of February 2000. She was subjected to treatment soon, which continue till now, under several doctors. Anyhow, she could not fully recover from the ailment even now. After the discontinuation of her study in the college, knowing that she could not continue her education in the college, complainants requested the opposite parties to return the moneys paid by them. Opposite parties initially agreed to return the same with some deductions. In the meanwhile opposite parties wanted the petitioners to find out a substitute in the place of the 2^nd complainant to return the money. Accordingly, the complainants brought one Rajasree. S, who was given admission at the behest of the petitioners and collected the money from her parents also. Opposite parties pleaded one excuse or the other with the petitioners in making the repayment of the money to them. Several persons intervened in the matter and persuaded the opposite parties to settle the matter. All proved futile. Finding no other alternative, complainants sent a notice dated 03.06.2006 through their advocate calling upon them to return the money of Rs. 5,06,000/- with interest and towards interest, a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- is claimed in this proceedings and the rest is given up. Thus total Rs. 9,56,000/- is due to be renewed. Opposite parties accepted the notice, but not cared to settle the matter so far.

Opposite parties in this case are the Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences and its Director. Opposite parties accepted notice of this complaint, but they never turned up to contest the case. Hence the opposite parties remained ex-parte.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Whether there has been unfair trade practice or deficiency in service occurred from the side of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs?

Points (i) to (iii):- As per the agreement between the 1^st & 2^nd complainant and opposite parties, the 1^st complainant agreed to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as capitation fee for the BDS course admission of the 2^nd complainant in opposite party's college. As per the agreement Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the representative of the opposite parties at the house of the complainants at Thiruvananthapuram. Balance amount was paid later. Accordingly admission was given and class started in the month of January 2000. The complainants also paid the opposite parties a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as fees for one year and Rs. 25,000/- as caution deposit and Rs. 3,000/- each as registration fees and cost of materials. Thus a total of Rs. 5,06,000/- was paid to them. But due to the change of atmosphere in the college and hostel, there developed a mental depression to the 2^nd complainant resulting discontinuation of her study in the college in the month of February 2000. She was subjected to treatment soon, which continue till now under several doctors. After the discontinuation of her study in the college, knowing that she could not continue her education in the college, complainants requested the opposite parties to return the amounts paid by them. Opposite parties initially agreed to return the same with some deductions. In the meanwhile opposite parties wanted the petitioners to find out a substitute in the place of the 2^nd complainant to return the money. Accordingly petitioner brought one Rajasree. S, who was given admission at the seat of the 2^nd complainant and collected money from her parents also. But till now the opposite parties are not willing to return the amount. The complainant sent lawyer's notice to the opposite parties, the opposite parties accepted notice, but they do not care to settle the matter.

In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. To prove their contention, the complainants have produced 5 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the certificate issued by Padanilam Welfare Trust to show that the 2^nd complainant was a student in opposite party's college dated 02.07.2000. But in the complaint, complainants stated that the 2^nd complainant discontinued her studies in the month of February 2000. Ext. P2 is the receipt for the payment of Rs. 50,000/-. As per this document, the amount received on 12.07.1999. Ext. P3 is the payment receipt of Rs. 60,000/- dated 06.01.2000. Ext. P4 series are the treatment records of 2^nd complainant. Ext. P5 series are the copy of advocate notice and the acknowledgement cards signed by the opposite parties.

From the documents adduced by the complainant, the cause of action for filing the complaint has been arisen in January 2000. The complainants sent lawyer's notice to the opposite parties on 03.06.2006. Thereafter no cause of action continues. The complainants filed this complaint before this Forum only on 31.03.2010, i.e; after a lapse of more than 4 years. The complainant did not file any delay condonation petition before us. The documents produced by the complainants are vague. Ext. P1, according to the complainants, is the evidence for payment of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite parties. But there is no seal or any such other details regarding the purpose of payment. Furthermore, it is very hard to believe that, the complainant accepted such scrap of papers issued as receipt for one lakh and ten thousand rupees by an institution as that of the opposite party and the same has been accepted by the complainant without any protest. There is no mentioning of name of the institution besides the interesting fact that, the receipt of Rs. 50,000/- on 12.07.1999 has been noted on a medical prescription pad dated 27.09.1999. Ext. P2 is also scribbled on a scrap of paper which is also a medical prescription pad. This Forum is taken aback by the attitude of the complainants, in satisfying themselves with this scrap of papers as receipt for payment of such huge amount, if any, towards fees for the course. When a case is filed, it is the burden of the complainant to prove his complaint with cogent evidence. In the instant case, in the absence of proper receipt for the payment of amount, even though opposite parties are ex-parte we cannot allow this complaint without sufficient proof. Exts. P1 to P3 documents are not genuine documents. And moreover the complaint is barred by time also. As per Consumer Protection Act a complaint should be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. Hence from the documents produced by the complainant itself it is very evident that the complainant has not filed this complaint within the period of limitation. In the light of the above discussions, considering the entire pleadings and documents we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his complaint and in view of the above, the complaint is only to be dismissed. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of July 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 102/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of certificate dated 12.07.2000.

P2 - Receipt for payment of Rs. 50,000/-.

P3 - Payment receipt of Rs. 60,000/- dated 06.01.2000.

P4 - Series are the treatment records.

P5 - Series are the copy of advocate notice and the

acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb