| COMPLAINT FILED: 30.06.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 28th OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1457/2008 COMPLAINANT Smt. Radha. B.N. D/o. Nanjundappa, Aged about 30 years, Residing at No. 11, 3rd D Cross, Thimmaiah Layout, West of Chord Road, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore 79. Advocate (N.M. Srinivasa Murthy) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Director, S.I.T.D (Society for Information Technology Development) No. 15/16, 2nd Floor, Vayudooth Chambers, M.G. Road, Bangalore 01. 2. Sahyadri Softech, No. 2496/E, Opp. Maruti Mandir, Service Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore. O R D E R 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 Rs.15,000/- with interest and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being lured away with the advertisement issued by the OP, who is engaged in Computer Teachers Training Course (CTTC) for a period of one year, thought of joining the said course to prosper her career. In that regard she approached the OP and took the admission and paid Rs.2,000/-, thereafter Rs.6,000/- towards the monthly tuition fees. OP acknowledged the same, but thereafter unfortunately OP was not regularly conducting the course and classes. Though complainant made several requests and demands to issue her the admission ticket and identity card so as to appear for the examination after the completion of course of one year, OP failed to heed to her requests and demands. OP did issue the said identity card and admission ticket to the other batch of students who underwent the said training to appear for the final examination. What made the OP to withheld the complainants ID card and admission ticket is not known. Due to the carelessness and hostile attitude of the OP complainant lost her academic year and suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances she demanded the OP to refund whatever the amount that is collected towards the said course with interest and pay compensation, it went in futile. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. Though OPs were duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OPs does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OPs are placed ex-parte. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed her affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OPs did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 4. It is the contention of the complainant that she being lured away with the advertisement issued by the OP, who promised to impart Computer Teachers Training Course (CTTC) course to the eligible candidates for a period of 1 year, thought of joining the said course to promote her educational career. OP accepted her candidature and collected Rs.2,000/- towards the said training on 07.09.2006 and fixed Rs.500/- towards monthly tuition fees. Complainant did pay the said tuition fees of Rs.6,000/- for the whole year. OP issued the rank list on 25.08.2006 which includes the name of the complainant. The said course was for 1 year, thereafter the candidates are required to appear for the final examination. Complainant did appear for the said course and completed it, then requested the OP to issue the admission ticket and ID card. But somehow OP failed to consider her request, hence she felt the deficiency in service. 5. It is further contended by the complainant that the other batch mates got the ID card and admission ticket to attend the said final examination. What made OP to withheld her ID card and admission ticket is not known. Her repeated requests and demands by addressing a letter and making oral request, went in futile. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. Due to the hostile attitude of the OP she has lost 1 academic year, naturally complainant must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. The non-appearance of the OP evenafter the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service, hence she is entitled for certain relief. The justice will be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.5,000/- and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.5,000/- and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (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 28th day of October 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g. |
---|
|
---|
|