BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.304/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 23^rd  February 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member                                       

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay Rs.5,000/- and 15% rebate on Rs.5,000/-, notice charges of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.30,000/- compensation for the mental agony and litigation charges with other reliefs.
2.     The complainant’s son joined opposite party’s college to continue his PUC course with PCMB combination.  He deposited a sum of Rs.6,440/- at the time of admission on 07.07.2011.  Another sum of Rs.5,000/- received by opposite party on 09.07.2011.  The opposite party promised to refund Rs.5,000/- at the time of leaving the opposite party college.  After successful completion of 1^st year PUC course by securing 84.83%, due to financial constraints, the complainant’s son was unable to continue his studies at opposite party’s college, joined another college to pursue his studies.  The complainant approached the opposite party and demanded for refund of Rs.5,000/- as promised, but opposite party failed to refund the same.  A legal notice caused on 10.03.2014, calling upon to refund the amount, was neither replied nor complied.  Hence, the aggrieved complainant filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party, despite of service of the notice, failed to appear, as such, placed exparte.
4.     The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and relied on certain documents.  Written arguments filed and heard the counsel for the complainant.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, in not refunding Rs.5,000/-, as promised by the opposite party, at the time of admission to the college and thereby the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- Complainant’s son joined opposite party college, for PUC course and paid the fees on 07.07.2011 and 09.07.2011.  The receipt of the total amount of Rs.11,440/- has been acknowledged by the opposite party.  The complainant submits, that the opposite party promised to refund Rs.5,000/- to him, on his son securing fist class in the 1^st year PUC course.  The complainant’s son successfully passed the 1^st year PUC by securing 84.83%.  Due to financial crises, the complainant’s son was unable to continue his education in opposite party’s college, joined another college.  The complainant demanded the opposite party for refund of Rs.5,000/- as promised at the time of admission with 15% rebate amount.  But, the opposite party kept on dodging the matter, with false assurances.  The complainant got issued a legal notice on 10.03.2014, calling upon the opposite party to pay the amount with 15% rebate and also interest at 12% on the said amount. 
8.    The opposite party neither replied nor complied the demands of the complainant.  Alleging the same amounts to deficiency in service, filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
9.    The complainant established that he has deposited a total sum of Rs.11,440/- towards admission of his son to the opposite party college to pursue his PUC course.  He established that his son secured 84.83% in the 1^st PUC course and left the opposite party’s college to pursue his education in another college.
10. However, the complainant failed to establish that the opposite party had promised him, to refund Rs.5,000/- and also to provide a discount of 15%, by means of any cogent evidence to that effect.  As such, we opine that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is not liable to pay any damages to the complainant.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following:   

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give a copy of this order to both parties as per rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 23^rd February 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER