Sri. K.GOPALAN: PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs 15,000/-together with the cost of this proceedings.<br /> The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Attracted by the advertisement in the news paper and believed it to be true the complainant contacted the opposite party for enquiring about the M.B.B.S. seat in Russia and Bulgaria. The opposite party assured to arrange MBBS seat and told to the complainant that he will explain in detail when he or his agent comes to Kannur. Address and phone numberwere also given to him as he was in need of MBBS seat for his brother. As informed by the opposite party on 18.6.2002 complainant met opposite party at Kannur. The opposite party promised that he will make arrangements to get ready for all the papers for the journey, ticket and get him jointed in St: Peeter’s Burge University and asked the complainant to give original certificate, passport and Rs 25,000/-as service charge. Complainant handed over original certificate and passport directly and sent a D.D. issued on 20.6.02 from Bank of India, Kannur branch payable to opposite party’s account no. 5066 at Ernakulam branch of same bank. But when complainant enquired about admission on 7.9.2002 opposite party told that the seat was not in English medium but in Russian medium and it not in St: Peeter’s Burge University but some other Unversity. Complainant told the opposite party that his brother is not interested to join in Russian Medium which is not recognized in India. But the opposite party did not say anything except keeping silence. On 30.2.2002 complainant sent registered notice demanding to return the certificates and the amount. As informed by opposite party complainant went to the office of the opposite party at Ernakulam and there from opposite party entrusted the certificate and passport and promised to send Rs 25,000/- by D.D. Since the amount was not sent complainant and his father went to the opppsite party’s office at ERnakulam but opposite party did not return the amount and getting away evading the complainant. Complainant suffered a loss of Rs 4000/-for travelling to meet opposite party. Complainant sent lawyer notice demanding to pay Rs 29,594/-. Opposite party sent Rs 10,000/- only. Hence this complaint for an order for Rs 15,000/- with interest and travelling expense together with cost of this proceedings.<br /> Persuant to the notice opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. The contentions of opposite party in brief are as follows:The opposite party is carried on a consultancy service centre by name “ Vivek International Consultancy Centre” at ERnakulam. This opposite party used to arrange seats for professional colleges outside the State and even abroad. Several students have successfully completed their studies and well placed in various parts of India and aborad. The complainant approached him for getting an MBBS seat for his bother Ananda Babu in Russia or Bulgaria. Opposite party detailed everything regarding admission, fees, hostel facility ,service charges etc, then and there. It is also informed to the complainant that the admissions are arranged through Dr. Jaffer of Thiruvananthapuram. It is also informd to the complainant that the service charge once paid will not be refunded on any circumstances. The complainant accepted all the terms and paid an amount of Rs 25,000/- to the opposite party by way of D.D. towards service. Immediately he took all steps to get admission for MBBS course through Dr. Jaffer. Later the complainant unilaterally abandoned the seat, when he knew from Dr. Jaffer that the one year fee for the MBBS course will come to a tune of Rs 1.5 lakhs. After giving up the seat the complainant demanded to return Rs 25,000/- to him. The service charge was not refundable. But on humanitarian ground opposite party returned an amount of Rs 10,000/- to the complainant directly along with the passport and other certificates. An amount of Rs 10,000/-was given to the complainant by Dr. Jaffer in presence of Superintendent of General Hospital,Thiruvananthapuram and this opposite party. Now only a balance of Rs 5,000/- is allegedly due to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any relief. The service charge was not refundable. Even then Rs 20,000/- was paid to the complainant by the opposite party and Dr. Jaffer only on humanitarian ground. There was no deficiency of service on the pat of the opposite party. The complainant has unilaterally withdrawn from the offer. Complainant has suppressed some material facts from this Hon: Forum.Hence pray for dismissing the case.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in he complaint?<br /> 3. Relief and cost.<br /> The evidence consists of the oral evidence adduced by the complainant and Ext.A1 to A6. There is no evidence oral or documentary on the side of the opposite party.<br /> Admittedly the complainant paid Rs 25,000/- for getting an MBBS seat for his brother in Russia or Bulgaria. The complainant adduced evidence as PW1 in tune with his pleadings. The opposite party cross examined the complainant but on his side no oral or documentary evidence placed before the Forum. Complainant has stated in his chief that <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant’s statement in chief that the certificates handed over to opposite party at Kannur Railway Station and D.D. for Rs 25,000/-to Ernakulam has not been denied by the opposite party. Opposite party has returned the documents and so also admitted the payment of Rs 20,000/-. In the cross examination. Complainant has deposed in cross examination that”<br /> <br /> <br /> This was not challenged by the opposite party. Hence both the facts that complainant met the opposite party at Kannur Railway Station and handed over the documents to opposite party so also opposite party received Rs 25,000/- have been proved beyond doubt Opposite party in his version stated that he has explained in detail regarding admission, fees, hostel facility etc then and there. But no evidence adduced to this effect.Opposite party also contended that complainant accepted all the terms and paid an amount of Rs 25,000/-. If that be true he has explained details of fees. Opposite party further contended that when the complainant knew that one year fee for MBBS course will come to a tune of Rs 1.5 lakhs complainant unilaterally abandoned the seat. It does mean that complainant immediately knowing the amount of fees of one year course abandoned the seat. In other words opposite party did not explain the complainant with regard to the fees of course before paying the amount Rs 25,000/-. What he stated in his version that he detailed everything regarding admission is totally false. What he stated in version is thus” This opposite party detailed everything to the complainant in respect of admission, its fees, hostel facility, service charge etc, then and there. If that be so complainant need not react upon hearing of the amount of fees later on. So his contention that the complainant unilaterally abandoned the seat when he heard of the amount of fees is absolutely false. In the cross examination opposite party put the question” <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The answer is ‘ ‘ Opposite party failed to elicit anything from the complainant so as to help him to establish any one of his contentions. As per the evidence of complainant opposite party finally offered Russian medium MBBS course and not English medium course. That is a probable reason for abandoning the seat. As far as an Indian student is concerned he will prefer only English medium course So that complainant can be believed in this aspect. Hence the opposite party was not able to make arrangements for the admission in English medium MBBS course.Taking into account the existing facts and circumstances we find there is deficiency on the part of opposite party. It is therefore opposite party is liable to refund the entire amount. There is evidence of repayment of Rs 10,000/-. As per available evidence it can be seen that RS 15000/- remains as balance to be paid out of the payment of Rs 25000/-. Thus complainant is entitled to get refunded Rs 15,000/-with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment of the amount. Opposite party is also liable to pay a sum of Rs 500/- as cost of this proceedings. The issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of the complainant and order passed accordingly.<br /> In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund Rs 15000/-( Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with an interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment of the amount together with a sum of Rs 500/-( Rupees five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER Sd/- PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX <br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Press cutting in Malayala Manorama dt. 9.6.2002<br /> A2. Photo copy of D.D. No. 968804<br /> A3. Photo copy of the chit issued by opposite party<br /> A4.Photo copy of the lawyer notice dt.11.2.2003 issued to the opposite party<br /> A5.Postal receipt<br /> A6. Postal acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1. Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Forwarded/ by order <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> <br /> <br />