Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by org. opponent No.1/Subhash Dnyanoba Kadam, Founder of D.M.K.G. Computer Centre, Mangalwedha, Dist. Solapur against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint No.274/2002. By allowing the complaint partly, by the said judgement dated 25/02/2004 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur directed the org. opponent No.1 to pay to the complainant a sum of `8,200/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 19/05/2002 and also directed him to pay `500/- as costs to the complainant. As such org. opponent No.1 has filed this appeal.
2. Respondent No.1 herein had paid total amount of `8,250/- for which employee of appellant herein had issued receipts. Said amount was taken for computer course. The complainant pleaded that opponent No.1/appellant herein had conducted examination for first semester and examination for second semester should have been conducted by June 2002. However, opponent No.1/appellant herein had not submitted examination form to opponent No.2. Therefore, complainant could not appear for the examination and he therefore, alleged deficiency in services on the part of opponents and claimed damages and refund of fees since he lost one full year because of negligence on the part of opponent No.1. He also claimed `10,000/- for mental harassment and `2,000/- towards costs.
3. Opponent No.1 filed written version and denied the allegations made by the complainant. Opponent No.1 also pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no substance in the complaint. Opponent No.1 pleaded that Shri Mane and Shri Sayyed are employees of opponent No.1 and the amount of fees were received from the complainant by them on his behalf. Shri Sayyed, one of the employees, who had accepted money, had misappropriated the moneys and F.I.R. was lodged against him. According to opponent No.1 complainant was a member of S.I.T.U. and said Association had not good relation with opponent No.1 and because of internal politics, complaint has been filed unnecessarily against him. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of complaint and also prayed that compensatory cost should be imposed on the complainant.
4. Opponent No.2 contested the matter by filing written version. They denied all the allegations made in the complaint and since the complainant is not their consumer, they prayed for dismissal of complaint against them.
5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum upon considering the affidavits and documents and pleading of the parties held that complainant was a consumer of opponent No.1 and opponent No.1 was guilty of deficiency in service because despite payment of fees he could not appear for examination conducted by opponent No.2. Receipts of fees of complainant were admitted by opponent No.1 and therefore, opponent No.1 was held liable to refund `8,200/- with interest @ 9% p.a. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum therefore allowed the complaint as against opponent No.1 and aggrieved by the said award, opponent No.1 has filed this appeal.
6. This appeal was lying unattended since many years. On 28/07/2011 we have placed this appeal on Board and directed the office to issue notices to both the parties. Office had sent notices to both the parties on 18/08/2011, but both of them have not come to contest the appeal. Hence, we perused the appeal memo, affidavits and documents placed on record and we are finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of appellant/org. opponent No.1. He received moneys from the complainant, but complainant could not appear for second semester examination conducted by opponent No.2. So, there was clearly deficiency in service and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has rightly passed the award against opponent No.1. We are finding no substance in the appeal preferred by org. opponent No.1. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 16th September 2011.
