D.O.F. 27.10.2006 D.O.O. 25.01.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President Smt. K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011. C.C.No.249/2006 S. Sakthivelan, J.E. (Works), Office of the Deputy Chief Engineer : Complainant (Construction), Southern Railway, Kannur. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, District Hospital P.O., : Opposite Party Kannur. (Represented by Adv. Kauser Edappagath) O R D E R Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay ` 50,000 as damages to the complainant. The facts of the case of the complainant is that he had obtained an application form for admission to Class 1 for his daughter by name Mohana after paying a consideration of ` 100 and has applied for admission to Class 1 of Kendriya Vidyalaya and had submitted the above application on 17.02.2006 and acknowledgment received with Reg. No. 200/1/06. According to the complainant he comes under the first priority for admission as per the admission guide lines published by opposite party in the prospectus for the 2006-07 academic year and the complainant’s daughter is eligible for admission under first priority. As per the guidelines, first priority should be given to the children of transferable Central Government employees including ex-service men. The complainant includes in this category. But the opposite party has rejected the application and as a result the admission to the complainant’s daughter was denied. If the opposite party has selected as per the guide lines, the complainant’s daughter would have selected for admission in Class 1. So according to the complainant, the admission was not conducted as per guidelines during the year 2006-07. The mode of selection adopted by opposite party is unfair and against the guidelines in the prospectus of 2006-07. The complainant has served in the Indian Air Force and now working in the Indian Railway. After rejecting the complainant’s daughter’s admission he had approached the opposite party personally and also issued a letter dated 27.03.06 and for which the opposite party has given a false and frivolous reply. Due to the act of the opposite party the complainant has suffered huge mental agony, physical hardship and financial loss and hence he had issued a lawyer notice. But the opposite party has issued a reply stating untenable contention. Hence this complaint. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed version. According to the opposite party the complainant is not a consumer and hence the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. The opposite party admitted that the complainant submitted a registration form for admission to Class 1 in the name of S.S. Mohana with registration No.200/01/06 by collecting a registration fee ` 100. Registering an application for admission will not confer right to admission to the school and this fact was brought to the notice of the complainant. At the time of registering a prospectus and admission guidelines was issued to the parent and in that prospectus along with other details, priority for admission was stipulated and as per this stipulated priority admission, the children of transferable Central Government Employee, including ex-service man comes under the first category. It was also further clarified by way of role number in the proceedings that in case of more applicants coming under the first category the merit list among them will be decided by the number of transfers of the parent of each applicant in the last 7 years involving the change of States and moving family. There are altogether 120 seats available in Standard 1 and there were more than 120 applicants who had registered their names for getting the seat. The applicant’s father had only one transfer in past 7 years and therefore the applicant is in waiting list as No.14 , after filling of the 120 seats of 1st standard. Out of 16 waiting list candidates of category 1 parents of 9 incumbents have got 2 transfers in the past 7 years. The incumbents 1 to 4 in the waiting list have been given admission. 5 incumbents in the category are still in waiting. Parents of 4 incumbents have got one transfer is the past 7 years and they are numbered as 9 to 16. So it is clear that the candidates who got admission in the first category were the children of parent who had 2 or more transfers in the previous 7 years. The child having No.16 is the waiting list by name Girisha A. is an OEC and on producing the OEC certificate she was admitted under OEC category. So the complainants allegation that the opposite party overlooked priority of the complainant’s daughter is not correct. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation. The complainant has not availed any service from the opposite party by receiving consideration and ` 100 was paid only for registration and not as consideration for availing any service. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief. 4. Relief and cost. The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 and B1 to B3. The opposite party contended that the complainant has not availed any service from the opposite party by receiving consideration. The sum of ` 100 paid by the complainant is only for registration of his child and not as consideration for availing any service from the opposite party. The opposite party admits that they have received ` 100 not as consideration of any service. But as a registration fee it is true that the amount of ` 100 was received by opposite party as registration fee and not as consideration of any service done or promise to be done. As per Consumer Protection Act a “consumer’ means any person who (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payments and includes any user of such goods. (ii) Hires or avails any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system or deferred payment and includes beneficiary of such services. In this case the complainant has not purchased any goods or not availed any services. He has paid Rs.100 for registration fee and it does not make any further contract with the opposite party. Moreover the complainant deposed that “I have not promised or paid further amount”. This means that he has not paid any further amount for consideration of any service or any contract of service. The opposite party also deposed that “AUvan-j³ ka-bT admission formþ\pT prospectusþ\pT IqSn-bmWv 100 cq] hm§m-dv. Admission processþ\v thn-bp-ff expenseþ\v BsW-¶p-ff direction CÃ. Cu XpI Central Governmentþsâ accountþÂ AS-bv¡m-dm-Wv. From this it is very clear that the opposite party is receiving the amount for and on behalf of the Central Government. So it is clear that the amount of ` 100 received by opposite party is not as consideration of any service and hence the complainant is not come under the purview of the definition of consumer as envisaged under Section 2(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Above all the complainant and opposite party has produced the prospectus for relevant period. As per this prospectus in its second page priorities for admission is shown as per the children of transferable Central Government Employees including ex-service men has first priority. But as per the notes it is stated as (1). To be considered transferable the parent should have atleast one transfer during the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2006”. But the opposite party contended that the complainant has only one transfer during the relevant period and there is more applicants who has more than two transfer at the prescribed period. But the complainant has not produced any documents to prove his case. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer and hence the issue No.1 is ordered against the complainant and the complainant has failed to substantiate his case. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly. In the result he complaint dismissed. No cost. Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Acknowledgement dated 17.02.2006. A2. Letter to OP dated 27.03.2006. A3. Prospectus. A4. Lawyer notice dated 17.05.2006. A5. Postal receipt dated 17.05.2006. A6. Acknowledgement dated 21.05.2006. A7. Letter dated 12.06.2006. Exhibits for the opposite party B1. Prospectus. B2. Copy of community certificate. B3. Copy of G.O.(Rt) No: 830/03/SCSTDD dated 15.10.2003. Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant. Witness examined for the opposite party DW1. Saseendran P. /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
