KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.APPEAL Nos. IN 12/07, 291/07 292/07, 293/07, 294/07, 295/07,296/07,297/07, 298/07, 299/07, 300/07,301/07COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 31-08-2010 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 12/07 APPELLANT M/s. Skyline Enterprises, Pvt. Ltd., Post Box No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi - 35 (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy & T.J. Lekshmanan Iyer) Vs RESPONDENT Ann Rose, D/o Jose Mathew, Kizhakkepalliyathil House, Arakkuzha P.O.,Muvattupuzha (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Tom Joseph) APPEAL NO. 291/07 APPELLANT Akhilraj, S/o Rajan,Kalarikkal House, Mulappuram P.O., Thodupuzha. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Tom Joseph) Vs RESPONDENT Sebastian John,Managing Director, M/s. SkyBlue Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. P.B. No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi – 35 APPEAL NO. 292/07 APPELLANT Santi Damodaran, Kazhakakkaran House, Parapoyil P.O, Kannur (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Tom Joseph) Vs RESPONDENT Sebastian John,Managing Director, M/s. SkyBlue Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. P.B. No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi – 35 (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy & T.J. Lekshmanan Iyer) APPEAL NO. 293/07 APPELLANT Archana. R., D/o Achuthanpillai, Vallyathu House, Cheruthana P.O.,Karuvatta(via), Alappuzha. (Rep. by Adv.Sri. Tom Joseph) Vs RESPONDENT Sebastian John, Managing Director, M/s. Sky Blue Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., P.B.No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi – 35. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy & T.J. Lekshmanan Iyer) APPEAL NO. 294/07 APPELLANT Sreeraj Radhakrishnan, Monipillil House, Purapuzha P.O., Idukki (Dist.) (Rep. by Adv.Sri. Tom Joseph) Vs RESPONDENT Sebastian John, Managing Director, M/s. Skyblue Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., P.B. No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi – 35. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy & T.J. Lekshmanan Iyer) APPEAL NO. 295/07 APPELLANT Mary Helen, D/o. Johnson peter, Arackal House,Vadackel P.O., Alappuzha (Rep. by Adv.Sri. Tom Joseph) Vs RESPONDENT Sebastian John, Managing Director, M/s. Skyblue Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., P.B. No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi – 35. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy & T.J. Lekshmanan Iyer) APPEAL NO. 296/07 APPELLANT Remya Kurup. S., D/o Sarasamma Kurup, ChakkalaKizhakkethil House, Cheruthana P.O., Karuvatta (via), Alappuzha. (Rep. by Adv.Sri. Tom Joseph) Vs RESPONDENT Sebastian John, Managing Director, M/s. Skyblue Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., P.B. No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi – 35. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy & T.J. Lekshmanan Iyer) APPEAL NO. 297/07 APPELLANT Bovus Mathew, Pezhumthottathil House, Malom, Chulli P.O.,Parappu (via), Kasargod. (Rep. by Adv.Sri. Tom Joseph) Vs RESPONDENT Sebastian John, Managing Director, M/s. Skyblue Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., P.B. No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi – 35. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy & T.J. Lekshmanan Iyer) APPEAL NO. 298/07 APPELLANT Maya Mohanan, Padinjaretheruvil House,Nellipilavu P.O., Chittar, Pathanamthitta. (Rep. by Adv.Sri. Tom Joseph Vs RESPONDENT Sebastian John, Managing Director, M/s. Skyblue Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., P.B. No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi – 35. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy & T.J. Lekshmanan Iyer) APPEAL NO. 299/07 Minu Elizabeth Mathew, Palackal House, S.H. Mount P.O.,Kottayam. (Rep. by Adv.Sri. Tom Joseph RESPONDENT Sebastian John, Managing Director, M/s. Skyblue Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., P.B. No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi – 35. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy & T.J. Lekshmanan Iyer) APPEAL NO. 300/07 APPELLANT Anil, S/o Paulose, Venkulathil House,Mulappuram P.O.,, Thodupuzha. (Rep. by Adv.Sri. Tom Joseph) RESPONDENT Sebastian John, Managing Director, M/s. Skyblue Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., P.B. No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi – 35. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy & T.J. Lekshmanan Iyer) APPEAL NO. 301/07 APPELLANT Divin K. James, Kodimattathil House, Kalayanthani P.O.,Thodupuzha. (Rep. by Adv.Sri. Tom Joseph) RESPONDENT Sebastian John, Managing Director, M/s. Skyblue Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., P.B. No. 3265, M.G. Road, Kochi – 35. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy & T.J. Lekshmanan Iyer) APPEAL Nos.12/07, 291/07 292/07, 293/07, 294/07, 295/07,296/07,297/07, 298/07, 299/07, 300/07,301/07COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 31.08.2010 JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant in appeal 12/07 is the opposite party in C.C. 338/06 and appellant in appeal 291/07 is the complainant in C.C. 124/07 and the appellant in Appeal 292/07 is the complainant in C.C. 7/07 and the appellant in appeal 293/07is the complainant in C.C. 29/07 and the appellant in appeal 294/07 is the complainant in C.C. 30/07 and the complainant in appeal 295/07 is the complainant in C.C. 33/07 and the appellant in appeal 296/07 is the complainnt in C.C. 32/07 and the appellant in appeal 297/07 is the complainant in C.C. 60/07 and the appellant in appeal 298/07 is the complainant in C.C. 65/07 and the appellant in appeal 299/07 is the complainant in C.C. 64/07 and the complainant in appeal 300/07 is the complainant in C.C.. 122/07 in the file of CDRC, Eranakulam. Only C.C. 338/06 was allowed by the Forum and the opposite party therein ie. appellant in appeal 12/07 is under orders to refund a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. The rest of the complaints were dismissed by the Forum. The opposite party in all the proceedings are M/s. Sky Blue Enterprises engaged in arranging admission etc. to the students from Kerala at the Nursing Colleges in the state of Karnataka. It is the contention of the complainants that the opposite parties collected amounts ie. Rs. 20,000/- and in certain cases Rs. 22,000/- mentioning that the same is towards admission fee etc. It is the case of the complainant that as against the assurance that the admissions will be arranged to Nursing Colleges having recognition of the Indian Nursing Council, they were admitted in one Gautam college of Nursing, Gulburga. Subsequently they came to know that the above college is not having recognition . They left the above institution and joint in other colleges having recognition and that the same caused much loss to the complainants. On the otherhand the opposite parties have contented that all of them were provided admission in Aysha College of Nursing which is a recognized college by the Indian Nursing Council. It is contented that the complainant left the above college in their own volition and joined in another college. It is also contented that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- paid is with respect to service charges of the opposite parties. Evidence adduced in C.C. 338/06 consisted of the testimony of Pw1 and Ext. A1,A2 Series and B1 and B2. The rest of the complaints were disposed of by common order by the Forum. Eight cases were tried jointly and evidence was adduced in C.C. 29/07. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Pw1 and Exts. A1 to A9 were marked. The opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence but got marked Exts. B1 to B16. Both sides have produced A1 and A2 and B1 and B2 in the rest of the cases. In C.C. 338/06 the Forum has relied on the evidence of Pw1 and the documents produced with respect to the payment of the amount. The opposite parties were admitted the receipt of Rs. 20,000/- in the case. Ext. B1 is only a list said to be that of the students who were provided admission at Aisha College of Nursing, Gulburga. The above document has not been proved by the opposite parties. It is only a list of names with a signature said to be that of the Principal, Aisha College of Nursing , Gulburga. The same cannot be relied. We find that there is no reason to disbelieve the versions of Pw1, the guardian of one of the students in C.C. 338/06 as well as that of Pw1 in the group of cases tried jointly. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties have admitted the receipt of Rs. 20,000/- which they claimed to be the service charges. The brochure produced promises to provide admission to the recognized institutions by the Indian Nursing Council. It is also pertinent to note that the opposite parties did not mount the witness box. In these circumstances, we find that no interference in the order of the Forum in C.C. 338/06 is called for. The order in C.C. 338/06 is confirmed and appeal 12/07 is dismissed. We find that the evidence in the rest of the O.Ps of which appeals have been filed is the same as in C.C. 338/06. There is no reason to enter a different finding in the rest of the C.C.s Hence the finding of the Forum in the other C.C.s over which appeals have been filed is setaside. The appeals are allowed. The opposite parties/appellants in Appeal Nos. 291/07 292/07, 293/07, 294/07 295/07,296/07, 297/07, 298/07, 299/07, 300/07, 301/07 are ordered to refund the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. The amounts are to be paid in all the cases within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties would be liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from today. The office will forward the L.C.R. in C.C. 338/06 along with the copy of this order to the Forum. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER |
