Complaints filed on: 16-11-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 20-11-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

          DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER

CC.No.175/2022

Dr.Gangadhar M.G.  S/o H.S.Gurusidappa,

A/a 50 years, R/at Anjanadhri, 2^nd Cross,

C.M.Extension, Kyathasandra, Tumkur.

……….Complainant

 (By Sri. G.Nataraj, Advocate)

V/s

1.       P.Suprith S/o Papanna

          Kanasu Daily Basket (Super Market),

          Beside TUDA office, Belagumba Road,

          Hanumanthapura, Tumkur Town.

2.       Siddartha Medical College and

          Research Center, Agalakote,

          Tumkur, Rep. by its Secretary.

……….Opposite Party

(OP1 – absent)

(OP2 - By Sri. R.Thippeswamy, Advocate)

:ORDER:

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay Rs.13,00,000-00 along with Rs.5,00,000-00 towards mental agony and Rs.2,00,000-00 towards damages and other incidental reliefs with interest @ 15% PA from the date of complaint to till the date of payment.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint as under:-

The complainant is a Doctor working in Government service and since his son namely Prajwal Pulikeshi M.G. wanted to pursue his studies in Medicine, and the OP No.1 contacted the complainant and introduced himself to be an educational advisor and working for OP No.2 and OP No.1 is able to get seat in the management quota and asked the complainant to make payment of Rs.35,00,000-00 towards seat booking charges and hence the complainant paid Rs.35,00,000-00 to the OP No.1 by way of DD and RTGS through his son and wife accounts. It is further submitted that OP No.1 stated that due to some misunderstanding between OP No.1 and management of OP No.2, the OP No.2 started postponing the blocking of seat in the OP No.2 and finally the OP No.1 stated that complainant’s son cannot get the seat in OP No.2. Hence, the complainant asked the OP1 to repay the amount back, for that the OP No.1 seeking time and finally issued two cheques for Rs.10,00,000-00 and Rs.2,00,000-00, but there were bounced, therefore the complainant filed complaint under Negotiable Instrument Act.  Further, it is submitted that the two demand drafts issued by the complainant for Rs.7,00,000-00 and Rs.6,00,000- were enchased by the OP No.1.  Hence, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs as they have failed to allot the seat in the medical college nor repaid the amount.  Hence, the complaint. 

3.       After service of notice, the OP1 remained absent and the OP No.2 appeared and filed the version contending that the complainant is not a consumer against this OP and also the complainant is stranger to this OP and he never seen the complainant at any point of time and also he has not assured the complainant for allotment of management seat in his favour and also not received any amount from complainant.  However for allotment of management seat, there is a proper channel is existing in the 2^nd OP without following the said procedure, the question of allotting the medical seat to anybody does not arise, however might have there is some transaction between complainant and 1^st OP, taking situation the complainant filed this false complaint just to wrongful gain if possible from this OP.  The OP denied the allegations made in the complaint.  On these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

4.       The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P6. In spite of sufficient opportunities, the OPs did not file his affidavit evidence.

5.       We have heard the arguments of counsel for complainant.  The OP-2 submitted that their version treated as arguments. Hence, posted for orders.

6.       On perusal of complaint, version, documents produced by the complainant, the points that would arise for our consideration are:

1)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2)                     Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?

6.       Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2: As per the final order

:R E A S O N S:

7.       From the pleadings and document submitted by the parties, it is seen that the complainant son wanted to pursue his studies in medicine.  In this regard, the OP No.1 contacted the complainant and introduced himself to be an Educational Advisor of OP No.1, the complainant paid Rs.35,00,000/- to the OP No.1 by way of DD & RTGS through his son and wife accounts, later, the OP No.1 stated that complainant’s son cannot get the seat in OP No.2 college as there is some misunderstanding between the OP No.1 and OP No.2.  Hence, the complainant asked the OP No.1 to repay the amount.  The OP No.1 issued 2 cheques for Rs.10,00,000-00 and Rs.2,00,000-00, but they were bounced.  The other two DDs issued by the complainant for Rs.7,00,000-00 and         Rs.6,00,000-00 were encashed by the OP No.2. 

8.       Per-contra, the OP-2 contended that the complainant is stranger to this OP and he has not assured the complainant for allotment of management seat in his favour and not received any amount from the complainant.  Further the OP contended that, for allotment of management seat, there is proper channel existing in the 2^nd OP, without following said procedure, the question of allotment of medical seat to anybody does not arise.

9.       To prove his case, the complainant submitted 2 DDs for Rs.7,00,000-00 and Rs.6,00,000-00 in favour of Secretary, Sri.Sidartha Medical College, Tumkur.  The Ex.P7 is the copy of the DD for Rs.7,00,000-00 drawn in favour of Secretary, Sri.Sidartha Medical College, Tumkur dated:28.06.2018.  These two DDs submitted by the complainant to the OP No.1 were encashed by the OP No.2.  This fact is not disputed/disproved by thy OP No.2 by producing any cogent evidence.  Hence, after encashing the DDs for Rs.13,00,000-00, neither OP No.2 allotted the seat in the medical college nor repaid the amount.  This act of OP No.2 amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.  Therefore, the OP No.2 is liable to refund Rs.13,00,000-00 to the complainant with interest @ 8% PA from the date of payment to till realization.  For the acts of OP No.2, the complainant approached this Commission.  Hence, the OP No.2 is liable to pay Rs.10,000-00 as litigation expenses and Rs.20,000-00 as compensation for mental agony.

10.     For repayment of Rs.13,00,000-00, there is no allegation of deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  As admitted by the complainant, the OP No.1 is liable to pay Rs.12,00,000-00, for that the OP No.2 issued cheques in favour of complainant.  But the said cheques were bounced and the complainant filed a complaint against OP No.1 under Negotiable Instrument Act.  Therefore, the complaint against OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we pass the following:-    

:ORDER:

The complaint is allowed in part with cost.

The OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.13,00,000-00 (Rs.Thirteen Lakhs only) with interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of payment i.e. 28.06.2018 to till realization.

The OP No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.20,000-00 (Rs.Twenty thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and                    Rs.10,000-00 (Rs.Ten Thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.  

The complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed.

The OP No.2 is directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order.

Supply copy of this order to both parties with free of costs immediately.