BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 163/2012 Filed on 14.05.2012

Dated : 31.01.2013

Complainants :

1. Chitralekha, D/o Chandrika, residing at T.C 28/1052, Devi Nivas, Sreekanteswaram, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Chitrarekha, D/o Chandrika, residing at T.C 28/1052, Devi Nivas, Sreekanteswaram, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. B.S. Rajesh)

Opposite party :

Sreekala, Propritrix, Sreelekshmi Driving School, Attakulangara, Near Madankoil, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Wilson Mullasseril)

This O.P having been heard on 11.01.2013, the Forum on 31.01.2013 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainants are sisters and the 2^nd complainant is residing at Chennai and she came to visit her sister during the vacation time at Thiruvananthapuram. Since both of them had desire to learn driving and since the 1^st complainant had the company of 2^nd complainant they decided to learn together. According to 1^st complainant's husband Mr. Unnikrishnan took both the complainants to the driving school run by the opposite party for admission. When they expressed their willingness to the opposite party on 05.05.2012 the opposite party told them that the fee for teaching driving is Rs. 5,500/- for each and she demanded to pay Rs. 3,000/- each as advance. Accordingly 1^st and 2^nd complainants paid the said amount to the opposite party and the opposite party issued receipt for the said payment. That day itself the opposite party took both the complainants for a trial run since that day was a hartal day, and as there was no traffic, both the complainants were taught a few preliminary lessons of driving on that day. Thereafter the opposite party told them the next day itself to bring the attested copies of their SSLC books. After searching for the same the 2^nd complainant understood that her SSLC Book has been lost. On the next day itself they informed the matter to the opposite party and then the opposite party told them that it is essential to produce attested copy of SSLC Book before the authority concerned for taking learner's license. In that circumstances the complainants had no other way, but to stop their attempt for learning driving and they demanded the opposite party to refund the advance amount, but the opposite party was not ready to refund the amount. The complainant tried their level best to get the amount from opposite party. She was very adamant and not ready to refund the amount. At last the complainants along with Mr. Unnikrishnan lodged a complaint before the Fort Police Station but that attempt was also failed due to the influence of the opposite party. Hence this complaint. The act of the opposite party in not refunding the advance paid, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to the adamant attitude of the opposite party the 1^st complainant also forced to withdraw from learning driving. The attitude of the opposite party towards the complainants were very harsh. Due to the attitude of the opposite party the complainants suffered too much hardships and loss. Hence this complaint.

Opposite party in this case filed version contending the entire allegations levelled against them. In the version opposite party states that on 05.05.2012 the complainants approached the opposite party directly and entered into an agreement for learning driving in her driving school on the basis of the terms and conditions of the said driving school printed in the prospectus and identity card issued by the opposite party. Accordingly the opposite party collected Rs. 6,000/- as advance and admitted the complainants in her driving school. The driving class started on 05.05.2012 itself and the complainants took the classes upto 09.05.2012. On 09.05.2012 the opposite party requested the complainants to produce their certificate for the purpose of making their date of birth to be filled in the application for issuance of driving license. But instead of producing the certificate the complainants intimated the opposite party that they do not have any certificate to prover their age. The opposite party at that time expressed their inability to proceed further in the matter as a certificate to prove date of birth is obligatory for the issuance of license. Thereafter the complainants were absent for the driving classes within the prescribed time allotted to them. At the time of admission the complainants were fully aware of the fact that a certificate to prove their age is compulsorily required for the purpose of applying for driving license. Thereafter the 1^st complainant's husband lodged a police complaint against the opposite party on 09.05.2012 before the Fort police station. The allegations in the complaint are not correct and hence denied. The opposite party further states that this complaint will not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint by virtue of the decisions contemplated in different judgements. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In this case 1^st complainant filed affidavit for herself and for and on behalf of 2^nd complainant and from their side one document was marked as Ext. P1 and the opposite party has marked Ext. D1 document through the 1^st complainant. The opposite party has filed proof affidavit, but they never turned up to appear for cross examination. Hence the affidavit filed by the opposite party is rejected.

Points to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?

2. If so, reliefs and costs.

Points (i) & (ii):- The complainants in this case are sisters, they decided to learn driving together. Accordingly they approached the opposite party and they expressed their willingness on 05.05.2012, then the opposite party told them that the fee for teaching driving is Rs. 5,500/- for each and she demanded to pay Rs. 3,000/- each as advance. Accordingly 1^st and 2^nd complainant paid the said amount to the opposite party and the opposite party issued receipt for the said payment. That receipt is marked as Ext. P1. On that day itself the opposite party took both the complainants for a trial run and taught only a few preliminary lessons of driving since that day was a harthal day. Thereafter the opposite party told them the next day itself to bring the attested copies of their SSLC Books. After searching for the same the 2^nd complainant understood that her SSLC Book has been lost. On the next day itself they informed the matter to the opposite party and then the opposite party told them that it is essential to produce the attested copies of SSLC Books before the authority concerned for taking learner's license. That it is impossible to learn driving without learner's license. In that circumstances the complainants had no other way than to stop their attempt for learning driving and they demanded the opposite party to refund the advance amount, but the opposite party was not ready to refund the amount. The complainants state that they tried their level best to get the amount from the opposite party. But she was not ready to refund the amount. At last the complainants lodged a complaint before the Fort police station on 09.05.2012 i.e; after 4 days, but that attempt also failed due to the influence of the opposite party. The opposite party produced the copy of complaint and marked that document through the 1^st complainant as Ext. D1. At the time of cross examination the 1^st complainant in her deposition stated that “police station-ല്‍ പരാതിപ്പെട്ടതിന് ശേഷം എന്ത് സംഭവിച്ചു? (Q) ഒരു ദിവസത്തെ fees എടുത്തിട്ട് ബാക്കി കൊടുക്കാന്‍ പറഞ്ഞു, തരില്ല എന്ന് അവര്‍ പറഞ്ഞു. അതു കൊണ്ട് SI Consumer Court-ല്‍ case കൊടുക്കാന്‍ പറഞ്ഞു”. These are the facts and circumstances of the complaint. To prove their contentions the 1^st complainant has filed proof affidavit for herself and for and on behalf of 2^nd complainant also. The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party has taught them for 4 days, and thereafter the complainants were abandoning their classes without any reason. And the opposite party also stated that she is not liable to refund the admission fees as complainants had violated the terms of agreement. In this case the opposite party has filed version and affidavit. But the opposite party has not turned up to appear for cross examination. Hence the affidavit filed by the opposite party is rejected. From the evidences of the complainants we find that the complainants have succeeded in establishing their complaint and hence they are entitled to get the reliefs sought by them. The opposite party in this case has taught only a day's class to the complainants. It is a true fact that it is essential to produce attested copy of SSLC Book before concerned authority to take learner's license and without learner's license it is impossible to learn driving. In that situation when the complainants demanded the refund of fee, it is the duty of the opposite party to refund the amount to the complainants after deducting one day's fee. Due to the adamant attitude of the opposite party, the complainants have been forced to file this complaint before this Forum and thereby they have suffered too much inconvenience and loss. If the opposite party had timely refunded the amount, the complainants would not have been forced to approach this Forum. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to them. From the above mentioned discussions we find that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 5,500/- i.e; Rs. 2,250/- to each complainants (Rs. 500/- deducted from Rs. 6,000/- as one day's fees which has been paid by the complainants as advance fee) and the opposite party shall also pay Rs. 2,000/- each as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise 12% annual interest shall be paid on the entire amount from the date of order till the date of realization.

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.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of January 2013.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 163/2012

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Chithralekha

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of cash receipt dated 05.05.2012 for Rs. 3,000/- issued

by Lekshmi Driving School.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of petition filed before the Fort Police Station by Unnikrishnan dated 09.05.2012

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb