BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 223/2002 Filed on 31.05.2002<br /> Dated : 16.06.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Jayakumar.A, Abhiramam, Charupara, Vithura P.O.<br /> Opposite party:<br /> Sivankutty, Sree Chithira Motor Driving School, Kulavikonam, Nedumangadu P.O.<br /> (By adv. P.Krishna Pillai)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 08.10.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 14.05.2008, the Forum on 16.06.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA: MEMBER<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had joined the opposite party's school for learning LMV on 28.11.2001. The opposite party had agreed to teach the course for Rs. 1750/- and accordingly the said amount was paid in instalments. But on the previous day of the test, the opposite party informed he complainant that, if he wants to attend the test he will have to pay Rs. 750/- also. The complainant paid Rs. 750/- also. But the complainant failed in the driving test and when he again approached the opposite party he was informed to pay Rs. 500/- extra for the test and the complainant alleges that it is illegal and has filed the complaint against the opposite party for refund of Rs. 2500/- along with compensation and costs.<br /> The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows:- The complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. The fee for driving test has to be remitted by the candidate who appears for the test and not by the driving school and the same was made known to the complainant at the time of joining the opposite party's school, which was agreed by the complainant also at the time of joining. An amount of Rs. 3000/- is being collected for teaching the students and to get the license and it is not possible to get license for an amount of Rs. 1750/-. After the completion of the driving class, the complainant appeared for the test on 01.02.2002 and he failed for part II road test and he was again asked to appear on 22.02.2002 but he was not willing to appear for the test by paying the fees. The complainant has not been qualified only due to his negligence and the opposite party is not liable for the same. The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and the opposite party is entitled to get back Rs. 15000/- from the complainant towards the repair charge for the damages caused to the opposite party's car due to the act of the complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> The complainant has been examined as PW1 and P1 has been marked on his side. Opposite party has been examined as DW1 and marked Exts. D1 to D3. <br /> The issues that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether the complainant is a consumer and whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?<br /> (ii)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (iii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> Point (i):- The complainant was a student of the opposite party and he had availed the service of the opposite party by paying the fees. The complainant has no case against the R.T.O. His specific case is against the opposite party only. As per the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer is a person who avails of any services for consideration and accordingly this complainant falls within the definition of consumer and this complaint is found maintainable before this Forum. <br /> Points (ii) & (iii):- Complainant alleges that he had joined the driving school of opposite party and the opposite party had assured to teach driving and get the license for an amount of Rs. 1750/-. But on the day previous to the test, the opposite party demanded an additional amount of Rs. 750/- also if the complainant wishes to attend the exam and ultimately that amount was also paid. The complainant attended the driving test and he failed. When he approached the opposite party again for re-test he was asked to pay Rs. 500/- which the complainant says illegal and prays for refund of the entire amount paid by him. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the reason for failure. We perused the documents on record. As per Ext. D3 it is seen that on 01.02.2002 LMV Part I passed and II failed. Reappear on 22.02.2002. The complainant has no case with regard to the deficient service of the opposite party, but his specific case is that excess amount has been collected by the opposite party from him. On a perusal of the documents before the Forum, it is seen, as per Ext. D1, that the training fee for the complainant is Rs. 3000/-. It is seen that the complainant has paid in instalments only Rs. 1750/- towards fees. As per the terms and conditions printed in Ext. D1, it is clearly stated in condition No. 5 that, the training fees in full has to be remitted before appearing for the driving test. This being the conditions stipulated then why the opposite party has permitted the complainant to appear for the test, if according to the opposite party the complainant has to further pay an amount of Rs. 1250/- towards fees is not known. The complainant alleges that the opposite party had assured to teach him for an amount of Rs. 1750/-. There is no evidence for the said allegation, Ext. D1 goes to show the fees specified, signed by the complainant which comes to Rs. 3000/-. The terms and conditions thereto are to be strictly followed. As per condition 6, the complainant is bound to pay retest fees if he wishes to appear for retest. But here the case is excess amount has been collected from the complainant. The records show payment of Rs. 1750/- only by the complainant and there is not an iota of evidence to show that excess amount has been paid in addition to Rs. 1750/-. Further the opposite party alleges that they owe Rs. 15000/- from the complainant towards damages caused to the car due to the act of the complainant. The opposite party has not filed any complaint with regard to the said allegation before any other authorities. Only after the filing of this complaint, the opposite party has come with such an allegation. There is no evidence for the said damage. In this circumstance this Forum finds that the said allegation raised by the opposite party against the complainant claiming Rs. 15000/- is only an after thought and hence the opposite party is not entitled for the same besides the fact that if at all the opposite party had any claim, it ought have been preferred before appropriate authority and not before this Forum and hence is not entertainable by this Forum. <br /> In the light of the above discussions, this Forum is of the view that the complainant has failed to establish his case and hence the complaint is dismissed. <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16th June 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD, <br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER <br /> <br /> O.P.No.223/2002<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - Jayakumar<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> P1 - Photocopy of card issued on 28.11.2001.<br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S' WITNESS :<br /> DW1 - Sivanpillai<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> D1 - Photocopy of driving school application form.<br /> D2 - Photocopy of identity card issued by the opposite party.<br /> D3 - Photocopy of Learner's License. <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br />