<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.07.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 07th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1642/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Ms. SONU M.DEVDA,Alias Snehal Jain,D/o Mahaveer Chand Jain,Aged about 18 years,Residing at No.214,K.Kamaraj Road,Bangalore – 560 042.Advocate – Sri. Paras JainV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Sathya Jyothi P.U College,# 9/1, First Cross,Susheela Road, Dodda Mavalli,Bangalore – 560 004.2. Sri.Puttaswamy,Father name not known,Principal,Sathya Jyothi P.U College,# 9/1, First Cross,Susheela Road,Dodda Mavalli,Bangalore – 560 004.3. Mr.Shanavas,Father name not knownTrustee,Sathya Jyothi P.U College,# 9/1, First Cross,Susheela Road,Dodda Mavalli,Bangalore – 560 004.Advocate – Sri.K.C.Shanthakumar<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.9,80,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant got admitted herself in the OP.1 institution for second year P.U.C to the academic year 2007-08. OP collected the tuition fees of Rs.6,000/- to impart the education. Complainant was expected to appear for the annual examination to be held in the month of March 2008. Unfortunately OP failed to issue her the Hall Ticket. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to issue the Hall Ticket in time went in vain. The hostile attitude of the OP costed her the loss of one precious academic year. She was unable to attend the said annual examination not only the complainant but some other hundreds of students have faced the same problem. Complainant even lodged the complaint to the Kalasipalyam Police alleging cheating and made repeated demands to the OP to compensate her, but all her efforts went in futile. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence she felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.1 & 3 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Of course OP.2 has remained absent, hence placed exparte. It is contended by the OP.1 & 3 that the whole complaint is devoid of merits. There is a gross abuse of process. Complainant was not eligible for the admission to the second year P.U.C because she passed her S.S.L.C examination in June 2007 that too in supplementary examination. The other allegations of the complainant are all false and frivolous. Complainant got admitted in OP.1 institution to take tuition for P.U.C not as a regular student. As admitted by the complainant OP imparted the education for whole year. Hence OP is not obliged to pay any compensation as claimed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 & 3 have also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is the contention of the complainant that she got herself admitted in OP.1 institution for second year P.U.C for the academic year 2007-08. OP collected the tuition fees of Rs.6,000/-. Receipt issued by the OP is produced. On the perusal of the said receipt dated 18.07.2007 bearing No.2029 it shows, course fee for admission P.U.C second year Arts. That means to say complainant is admitted for second year P.U.C. Another document is the identity card issued by the OP institution in favour of the complainant, which shows she is undergoing a course P.U.C second year Arts. Contents of the said documents are not denied or disputed by the OP. <br /> 7. When complainant was unable to get the Hall Ticket so as to appear for annual examination she felt that she is duped and cheated by the OP. That is why she lodged the complaint to the Kalasipalyam Police. Copy of the said complaint is produced. OP has not disputed the fact of complainant and other students having filed the criminal complaint against them alleging offence of cheating.<br /> <br /> 8. It is the contention of the complainant that though she attended classes promptly, OP failed to issue her the Hall Ticket so as to appear for the annual examination. Because of the hostile attitude of the OP, she lost her precious academic year. As against this it is contended by the OP that the complainant passed her S.S.L.C in supplementary examination in June 2007, so she is not entitled for the admission for the second year P.U.C. If that were to be the fact why OP collected Rs.6,000/- admitted her second year P.U.C and issued the identity card is not known. Here we find the unfair practice on the part of OP institution. <br /> <br /> 9. The documents produced by the OP goes to show that the other aggrieved students have filed writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka praying for issuance of directions to OP to issue the Hall Ticket and the other documents produced by the OP goes to show, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the said students like complainant alleging the offence of cheating. Kalasipalyam Police have registered case at crime No.36/2008, wherein OP.3 and others were arrested. Later on they were released on bail by IX A.C.M.M court. The other documents produced by the OP goes to show that the Government instructed OP not to admit students for P.U.C for the academic year 2008-09 because the result of their institution is very poor and less than 10%. So all these documents produced by the OP they speaks themselves towards the sub standard education and other activities of OP. <br /> <br /> 10. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.3,000/- tuition fees and pay a token compensation for mental agony along with litigation cost. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.3,000/- tuition fees and pay a compensation of Rs.1,500/- along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 07th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />