DATE OF FILING : 21.1.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2017

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.25/2016

Between

Complainant : Betty Yohannan,

Adakkavil House,

Thankamany P.O.,

Idukki – 685 515.

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Sivaram Sinha,

Global Education Foundation,

Near Umamaheswara Temple,

Elavanthickal Building,

Nedumkandam,

Idukki – 685 553.

2. The Principal,

Royal College of Nursing,

7^th Main Road,

1^st Block, Utharahalli,

Bangalore North,

Bangalore – 560 061.

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that,

        First opposite party is conducting an educational institution in the name and style Global Education Foundation in Nedumkandam, Idukki district.  In the year of 2015, 1^st opposite party approached the complainant and he himself introduced that he is conducting a nursing college at Bangalore in the name and style, Royal College of Nursing and he offered the admission to the daughter of the complainant, Sneha John.  Opposite party further stated the student can complete the course with bank loan since he himself is one of the directors of the said college and he will conduct all the procedures for admission, without the presence of the complainant or her daughter at Bangalore.  Believing the words, the complainant entrusted all the certificates of her daughter to the (cont....2)

- 2 -

1^st opposite party.  Thereafter she approached Union Bank of India, Thankamany branch and showed the details of the said college to the manager on convincing the documents, the manager sanctioned an amount of Rs.78000/- as educational loan for the first year tuition fee and the complainant handed over the draft of the bank to opposite party along with Rs.7092/- as insurance premium and Rs.15000/- as admission fee.  Thereafter Sneha John got admitted in the said institution and she attended her first year course at Bangalore. While so, at the end of first year course, the opposite parties are not permitted her to attend first year examination without valid reasons.  On enquiry, the complainant and her daughter came to know that non-permission of attending the examination is due to some error in their computer.  So without attending the first year examination, the daughter of the complainant forced to return from Bangalore, without completing her studies.  Complainant further stated that the act of the opposite parties in not permitting her daughter in the first year examination is gross deficiency in their service and unfair trade practice.  This caused much mental agony to the complainant and her daughter and the daughter lost her chance for further studies.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum and filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and prayed reliefs such as to return the certificates of her daughter and also direct them to repay the fees of Rs.78000/- being the fees  which was remitted by the complainant to them along with Rs.1 lakh as compensation.

        On notice, opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance, but not adduced any evidence,  eventhough the Forum allowed sufficient time to them for appearance and contest the matter.  Hence the opposite parties are set exparte. 

Thereafter the complainant adduced evidence by way of oral evidence and documents.  The documents produced by the complainant are taken as part of evidence and marked as Exts.P1 to P6.  Exts.P1 to P4 are copy of Migration certificate, copy of SSLC, copy of Higher Secondary Mark List, copy of Transfer Certificate respectively, of daughter of the complainant Sneha John.  Ext.P5 is insurance policy.  Ext.P6 is admission confirmation letter issued by the opposite parties.

(cont....3)

- 3 -

        The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

        The POINT :-  We have heard the counsel for complainant and gone through the records carefully.  In this case, the facts of the complainant  are not challenged.  Eventhough 2^nd opposite party filed vakalath, not turned to proceed the matter and not filed objection to the complaint.  Hence under the above circumstance the Forum is of a considered view that the allegation against the opposite parties 1 and 2 are proved by the complainant through the proof affidavit and exhibits. 

        Hence the complaint allowed.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to return the original certificate as stated in Exts.P1 to P4 to the complainant within 30 days  from the date of receipt of  a copy of this order.  The 1^st opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.78000/- being the fee collected by him from the complainant and an amount of Rs.1 lakh as compensation, to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount in the above said two heads shall carry 12% interest per annum from from the date of default, till its realization.

        Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of September, 2017

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

(cont....4)

- 4 -

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Betty Yohannan.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of Migration certificate.

Ext.P2 - copy of SSLC.

Ext.P3 - copy of Higher Secondary Mark List.

Ext.P4 - copy of Transfer Certificate.

Ext.P5 - insurance policy. 

Ext.P6 - admission confirmation letter issued by the opposite parties.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Forwarded by Order,

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT