Karnataka

Kolar

CC/42/2014

Kum. T. Veena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sambram Charitable Trust, & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

N.Ramachandraiah

21 Feb 2015

ORDER

  Date of Filing : 22.08.2014

  Date of Order : 21.02.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

 

Dated 21^st  FEBRUARY 2015

 

PRESENT

 

Sri. SYED ANSER KALEEM           …….      PRESIDENT

Sri. H.JANARDHAN                         ……..     MEMBER

 

CC No. 42 / 2014

 

Kum. T. Veena,

D/o Thimmarayappa,

Aged about 19 years,

Student, R/at Byrakur Village,

And Post,

Mulbagal Taluk.

 

 (By Adv. Sri. N. Ramachandraiah)                          ……. Complainant

 

V/s.

 

 

1.  Sambram Charitable Trust,

No.28, 1^st Main Road,

Jayamahal Extension,

Bangalore – 560 001.

 

 

2. Sambram Institute of Nursing,

No.36, D.K. Plantation,

B.E.M.L Nagar,

K.G.F – 563 615.

Kolar District.

 

 

(Ex-parte)                                                               ……. Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

 

By Sri. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

 

This Complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OPs U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging the deficiency in service and praying to pass an order directing the OPs to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest and such other reliefs. 

 

2.       The brief facts of the Complaint is that, complainant was a permanent resident of Byrakur Village, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar Dist.    The complainant after her successful completion of Pre-University Course in the year 2012-13 by securing 40% average marks intended to pursue further studies in nursing approached the Ops institution.    The OP No.1 is a Trust and OP No.2 is a Institution and has got approval from the Director of Medical Education and recognized by the Indian Nursing Council as well as Karnataka Nursing Council.     On 26.08.2013, the OP No.2 had collected a sum of Rs.50,000/- as donation and Rs.10,000/- as tuition fee and also  collected Rs.5,000/- towards rent for the year 2013-14 towards hostel charges and Rs.1,280/- towards mess fee for the month of September 2013 from the complainant.   In all totally OPs collected Rs.30,000/- apart from Rs.50,000/- as donation.    Due to the utter shock and surprise, OP No.2 has issued a letter dated 24.02.2014 addressed to the father of the complainant, informing her that the admission of the complainant is not approved by the Karnataka Nursing Council on the ground that,  she is not eligible for nursing course as she had secured marks less than 40% in P.U.C.     The complainant hails from agricultural background and her father is an agriculturist, due to negligence and irresponsible act of the Ops her future career has been spoiled and also suffered monetary loss and mental agony.        Then complainant got issued the legal notice through Advocate, but there was no proper response from the OP.   Hence this Complaint.

 

3.       Upon service of notice, Ops for the reasons best known to them have remained absent and accordingly Ops are placed ex-parte.   

 

4.       To substantiate the case of the Complainant, she has filed her evidence by way of affidavit and also we have heard the arguments of the Complainant. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, following points will be arisen for our consideration.

 

(i)      Whether the Complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

 

(ii)     Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief?

 

(iii)    What Order ?

 

5.       Our findings to the above points are:

 

(i)      In the affirmative

 

(ii)     In the affirmative

 

(iii)    As per final order

 

 

 

REASONS

 

6.       Point No. (i) –  On perusing the evidence placed before us and also perusing the letter dated 24.02.2014 produced by the complainant, it reveals that the complainant has taken admission to the OP institution in order to pursue her studies in nursing.    But the OP informed the complainant that her first year admission to GNM is not approved by Karnataka State Nursing Council, Bangalore and intimated her to collect her original certificate as she cannot continue her course.   It is the duty of the institution, that before taking admission, the institution should ascertain the validity of the marks card, the criteria for due admission to the course, but it has not been done by the OP institution as seen from the available evidence on record, it obviously attract the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.   More so, Ops being the educational institution they ought  to have honour the notice issued by the Forum and remained absent by not contesting the allegations made in the complaint.    Hence, the allegations remained unchallenged.   Under these circumstances we have no other option but to believe the allegations of the complainant.   Furthermore, due to the act of the Ops the complainant lost her valuable days, it cannot be substitute for any amount.   However on perusing the bills produced by the complainant it discloses that the complainant incurred expenses of Rs.35,865/- and hence Ops are liable to pay a sum of Rs.35,865/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-, and it is justifiable in the attendant circumstances of the case and also it will meet the ends of justice In the light of above discussions, we accordingly hold Points (i) & (ii) in the affirmative.

 

7.       Point No. (iii) –  In the result, we proceed to pass the following order:

 

ORDER

 

1. The Complaint is allowed in part with cost.

    

2. Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,865/- the complainant along with interest at rate of 12% p.a. from the date of admission till the date of realization.

    

3. Ops are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

 

1. OP is directed to pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

    

2. OPs are directed to comply the order within 30 days and to submit compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of this Order.

    

3. Send free copy of this order to both the parties.

    

          Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, the 21^st February 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

                MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT