Before The District Forum: KurnooL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 23th day of December, 2003
C.D.No.120/2003
G.Sundar Raju,
S/o. G.Naganna,
Karate Master,
H.No.9-4-G-1 Vittal Nagar,
Near Krishna Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri T.Sreenivasulu.
-Vs-
R.Sundar Murthi alias Sundaram.
Chief Instructor and Examiner,
A.P.S.R.T.C.,
Madanapalli Depot,
Chittoor Dist. . . . Opposite party
O R D E R
1. (As per Smt C.Preethi Member) This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under sections 11& 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to return the admission fees of RS.7,000/- along with interest of 18% P.A, RS.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and damages cost of the complaint and such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the opposite party conducted the shorei-Kai-world H.Q.Japan certificate course, the complainant joined the said course first batch of 6 students and paid RS.7,000/- as course fee. The contact classess and examinations was held at S.T.B.C College, Kurnool, after completion of the said course the opposite party issued a pass certificate dt 21.10.2001 but they did neither issued identification card nor Certificate of the said course. The complainant on verification with the opposite party association “DICINAWA GOJA- RYU KARATE ASSOCIATION in Chittoor District came to know that the said institution is a bogus one, the complainant along with other 5 students withdrew from the said institution and requested to refund the admission fee of RS.7,000/- or issue training certificate or identification card and there is no response from the opposite party. Being vexed with the attitude of the opposite party the complainant got issued registered legal notice dt 28.4.2003 and the opposite party replied to the said notice through its letter dt 11.5.2003. Hence there appears deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and the complainant suffered mental agony. The opposite party has a branch office at Kurnool and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this case.
3. The complainant in support of his case relies on the documentary record Viz., (1) certificate of authorised Instructor card of the complainant (2) office copy of legal notice dt 28.4.2003 issued to the opposite party (3) reply legal notice dt 11.5.2003 of the opposite party (4) attested xerox copy of certificate dt 21.10.2001 issued by Shihan S.Haribabu, Asian representative promising for issual of Balck Belt certificate within 6 months (5) certificate dt 21.10.2001 issued by Shihan S.Haribabu, Asian representative promising for issual of Back Belt certificate within 6 months. The complainant in support of the above documents filed his sworn- affidavit in-reiteration of his complaint averments as evidence and hence the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.5 their appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of notice of this Forum of this case the opposite party did not appear before the Forum nor filed his written version or documents in defence and remained exparte through out the case proceedings.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the case against the opposite party and his entitleness to the reliefs sought:-
6. While the complainant merely filed a sworn affidavit in-reiteration of his case and did not case to file any relevant cogent documentary record in substantiation of his allegations made in the complaint. The Exhibits filed by the complainant also doesn’t support his case in any way. The Ex A.1 Instructor card issued by Okinawa Goju Ryu Karati Do Association to the complainant valid for a period of 9.2.2002 to 8.2.2003, mentioning the complainants rank as
V DON BLACK BELT A.P. CHIEF INSTRUCTOR, there appears no relevancy of the said exhibit to the case on of the complainant and privy to the opposite party.
7. The Ex A.2 is the legal notice of the complainant dt 28.4.2003 issued to the opposite party which alleges non issual of identification card and certificate after the completion of the said course by the opposite party who conducted the said course at Kurnool, even after receiving the course fee of RS.7,000/- for the said course and demands RS.50,000/- as damages. But the ExA.3 reply notice of the opposite party dt 11.5.2003 denies all the allegations averred in Ex A.2, that the said course was not conducted by the opposite party nor he took admission of the alleged 6 students to the course, nor he is connected to the said alleged course, hence there is no necessary to collect RS.7,000/- as course fee. When the opposite party denies all allegations averred in Ex A.2 it is for the complainant to prove his case. The complainant did neither placed any relevant, cogent material on record to substantiate his case nor filed any supporting sworn affidavits of his fellow students who joined the said course along with the complainant. In the absence of any such material to establish privy with the opposite party the complainant miserably failed to expose any deficient and lapsive conduct against the opposite party for alleged non issual of certificates.
8. The Ex A.4& 5 are nonetheless same envisages the issual of BLACK BELT CERTIFICATE to the complainant within 6 months from the date of exam, the said Ex A.4 and 5 was signed by one Shian S.haribabu Asian representative, here the complainant failed to establish the privy between the issuer of Ex A.4&5 to the complainant and to the opposite party, hence the said Exhibits has no relevancy to this case.
- It is settled law lay down by National Commission that the Consumer dispute should be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant and the opposite party in this case the opposite party remained exparte to the case proceedings, going in to the merits of the complainants case and after perusal of exhibits got marked by the complainant as evidence in support of his case, could not establish the privy of the opposite party to the complainant case. Moreover the opposite party in his reply legal notice Ex A.3 denies all the allegation averred in Ex A.2 complaints legal notice. Under the Circumstances the complainant is not remaining entitled to the reliefs sough for want of material evidence to prove deficient and lapsive conduct on the opposite party.
10. Therefore in the result, complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court, this 23rd day of December, 2003.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
