Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/37/2015

V.P. Rowpya Sree, aged 18 years, D/o. Dr. V.V. Panduranga Vittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

North American Service Centre (NASC), Rep. by its Proprietor G.Venkat. - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 10.08.2015

Order Date:29.03.2016

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

TUESDAY THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.37/2015

 

 

Between

 

1.         V.P.Rowpya Sree,

            D/o. Dr.V.V.Panduranga Vittal,

 

2.         Vallagu Venkataswami Panduranga Vittal,

            M.B.B.S., D.G.O.,

            Aged 63 years,

            Retired District Medical and Health Officer,

            S/o. Venkataswami,

 

Residing at:  

 

D.No.19-12-543, Bairagipatteda,

Tirupati – 517 501,

Chittoor District, A.P.                                                                      … Complainants

 

 

 

And

 

North American Service Centre (NASC),

Rep. by its Proprietor G.Venkat,

Formerly at D.No.80, 1^st Floor, 1^st Main,

1^st Cross, Opp. to Forum Mall,

Taverikeri Main Road,

Bangalore – 560 029.

 

Presently at:

3/5, Ground Floor,

Sapthagiri Building, S.G.Palya,

Taverikeri Main Road,

Opp. to Oracle Building,

Bangalore – 560 029.                                                                      …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 14.03.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainants, and opposite party remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections-12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite party for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,95,000/- covered under the unpaid cheque, 2) to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental agony and for unfair trade practice and 3) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the litigation.     

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:- that the complainant No.1 is the daughter of complainant No.2. The opposite party is having its branch office at plot No.503, 5^th floor, Rathna Complex, beside Image Hospital, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The 2^nd complainant wants to take admission to his daughter (1^st complainant) in MBBS at Perpetual University, Manila, Philippines. As such he contacted the opposite party in its branch office at Hyderabad on 16.09.2014. To process the application of complainant No.1, branch office of opposite party at Hyderabad, demanded Rs.5,95,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.2,95,000/- on 16.09.2014 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 13.11.2014. The opposite party issued receipts for the respective payments, for rendering service in getting VISA for the 1^st complainant, for admission in MBBS at Manila, Philippines.

            3.  Subsequently, no action was taken by the opposite party. As a result of which her admission was denied. Atlast, opposite party refunded the amount of Rs.5,95,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.598783 dt:27.03.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank, Koramangala Branch, Bangalore. The said cheque was bounced for want of sufficient funds on 30.03.2015. In this connection, a criminal case was filed before the 19^th Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore and it is pending. Thereafter, opposite party regretted for bouncing cheque and gave another cheque bearing No.494746 dt:08.07.2015 drawn on S.B.I., Koramangala Branch, Bangalore. The 2^nd complainant presented the second cheque dt:08.07.2015, through his Andhra Bank account, Bairagipatteda, on 08.07.2015 itself, but it was also returned unpaid with endorsement “funds insufficient” on 09.07.2015.

            4.  Complainant No.2 got issued legal notice on 20.07.2015, demanding the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5,95,000/- covered under the returned cheque within 15 days, else the dispute will be referred to District Forum at Tirupati, for the deficiency in service, inspite of it, the opposite party did not respond. Hence the complaint.

            5.  The opposite party remained exparte, even without making its appearance before this Forum. Notice sent to the opposite party was returned unclaimed under Ex.A9.

6.  Heard the counsel for complainant. The 2^nd complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A11          

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

            (ii).  To what relief?

            8. Point No.(i):-  in order to answer this point, the complainant specifically contending that the opposite party has collected Rs.5,95,000/-, to provide VISA for the 1^st complainant and also admission in MBBS at Perpetual University, Manila, Philippines, to that effect, the opposite  party has passed on receipts under Exs.A1 and A2 dt:16.09.2014 and 13.11.2014, and subsequently the opposite party failed to stick on its promise in serving the complainant for the purpose for which the opposite party collected Rs.5,95,000/- from the complainants. When the complainant made his efforts for atleast to recover the amount he paid, the opposite party gave a cheque bearing No.598783 dt:27.03.2015, for Rs.5,95,000/-. The said cheque was bounced and in that connection a criminal case in C.C.No.15282/2015 under Section-200 Cr.P.C, r/w Section-138 & 142 of N.I.Act, was pending on the file of                       19^th Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, in which complainant sought for production of accused therein for the offences under Section-138 of N.I.Act and also sought for compensation under Section-357 Cr.P.C.

            9.  So far as the bouncing of cheque is concerned, a criminal proceedings before 19^th Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bangalore are pending and this Forum is in no way concerned with that offence.

            10.  The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party claiming refund of the amount paid, a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- and compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Now, it is pertinent to mention the definition of “deficiency”. Section-2(i)(g) of C.P.Act 1986 defines the word ‘deficiency” as follows:

“deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

        

            It is also necessary to define the word “service”. Sectoin-2(i)(o) of the C.P.Act 1986, defines the word “service” as follows:

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both [housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

               

11.  Opposite party in this case, collected Rs.5,95,000/- from the complainants, to extend its services for getting admission in MBBS course at Perpetual University, Manila, Philippines, and also collected the said amount towards processing the application for VISA for the 1^st complainant, but the opposite party failed to do the said services undertaken by it. There is a contract between the complainants and opposite party to get admission for the 1^st complainant in MBBS at Manila and collected Rs.5,95,000/- for the purpose, but the opposite party failed to do so. Similarly, it can be fairly said that the opposite party also failed to perform / extend the services undertaken by it, for getting VISA and admission in MBBS at Manila, for the 1^st complainant. So, in both the aspects i.e. in rendering services and also performing his duty in extending services, the opposite party miserably failed. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In other words, it can be safely hold that in view of cheques issued by the opposite party under Exs.A3 and A7, that the opposite party has admitted the facts of the case and its failure to fulfill its obligation in getting VISA and admission in MBBS at Manila

12.  So far as jurisdiction is concerned, the complainant has presented the second cheque in his Andhra Bank account at Bairagipatteda, Tirupati, for recovering the amount he paid to the opposite party. It is also further found that the opposite party is in the habit of issuing cheques without sufficient money in its account, which is nothing but cheating the consumer and depriving the rights of the consumer. Since the complainant has paid the amount for specific purpose, for getting the services from the opposite party, for which the opposite party promised, the complainant is a consumer within the definition of Section-2(i)(d) of the C.P.Act. Therefore, he is entitled to refund of the amount in a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- from the opposite party. Accordingly, this point is answered holding that the complainant has established the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

13.  Point No.(ii):-  in view of our discussion on point No.1, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.5,95,000/- and also entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and also entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.5,95,000/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety five thousand only) to the complainant along with interest at 9 percent p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 13.11.2014, till realization and also to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant, for the loss of one academic year to 1^st complainant and for causing mental agony to the complainants, and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- shall also carry interest at 9 percent p.a. from the date of order, till realization.        

            Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 29^th day of March, 2016.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                                                  

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainants.

 

PW-1: Vallagu Venkataswamy Panduranga Vittal (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party.

 

NIL

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copies of Receipts for Rs.15,000/- Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.70,000/-. Dt: 16.09.2014.
	Photo copy of Acknowledgement for cash payment of Rs.3,00,000/- by NASC, Hyderabad. Dt: 13.11.2014.
	Copy of cheque No.598783 for Rs.5,95,000/- issued by the Opposite Party in favour of complainant No.2. Dt: 27.03.2015.
	Photo copy of Endorsement of ICICI Bank, Tirupati to Andhra Bank at Tirupati. Dt: 30.03.2015.
	Office copy of Legal Notice to the Opposite Party and to the Branch Office at Hyderabad. Dt: 23.04.2015.
	Letter from the Opposite Party enclosing post-dated cheque for Rs.5, 95,000/-. Dt: 13.05.2015.
	State Bank of India, Tirupati endorsement to Andhra Bank, Tirupati as ‘Funds Insufficient’ on cheque return memo. Dt: 09.07.2015.
	Office copy of the Legal Notice to the Opposite Party. Dt: 20.07.2015.
	Undelivered registered cover addressed to the Opposite Party. Dt: 03.08.2015.
	A copy of Intermediate Certificate of complainant No.1 V.P.Rowpya Sree. Dt: 03.05.2014.
	Copy of complainant in C.C.No.15282/15 on the file of 19th Additional  Metropolitan Magistrate at Banglore. Dt: 16.05.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

NIL

 

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                               President

              // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

             Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 Copies to:-    1. The complainants.

                       2. The opposite party.