Kerala

Wayanad

CC/08/95

Roy Sebastian, Thekkumalay House, Adikolly, Amarakkuni Post, Pulpally - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunitha Nair, Immigration Manager, AIMA Service,Door No 377, Javahar Nagar, Kadavanthara, Cochin - Opp.Party(s)

27 Sep 2008

ORDER


CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/95

Roy Sebastian, Thekkumalay House, Adikolly, Amarakkuni Post, Pulpally
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sunitha Nair, Immigration Manager, AIMA Service,Door No 377, Javahar Nagar, Kadavanthara, Cochin
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. P Raveendran 3. SAJI MATHEW

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant entered in to a contract with Opposite Party for studying MVQ level IV in Health and Social Care at A&S Training College in United Kingdom on 26.11.2007. Upon the demand of the Opposite Party, the Complainant collected different documents as such education sanctioned letter from Southern Indian Bank, Pulpally. Copy of the land purchase certificate, copy of the documents related to immovable property, copy of the encumbrance certificate and different other documents for the purpose of education. The Complainant spent Rs.8,730/- for the collection of documents and for other expenses Rs.20,000/- was directly paid to the Opposite Party. The Complainant was inspired by the advertisement of the Opposite Party and the endeavor was done by the offer of the Opposite Party in order to pay the necessary amount for the same. A loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- was arranged from South Indian Bank Pulpally. All the expenses from the part of the Complainant was done only upon instruction of the Opposite Party. The medical check up and certificate in that respect was also collected beyond the initial expenses for the collection of documents. The Complainant spent near about Rs.9,000/- only for traveling expenses. On 30.5.2008 the Opposite Party informed the Complainant over telephone that the British Embassy rejected the visa application and later informed that over qualification was the reason for the rejection of the visa application. The advertisement by the Opposite Party in the daily stated that MSW is the basic qualification required for the higher study. The Opposite Party deliberately cheated the Complainant, Rs. 20,000/- was repaid by the Opposite Party. The false advertisement of the Opposite Party made the Complainant to spent huge amount and apart from that the mental shock and sufferings of the Complainant cannot be compensated. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to pay back Rs.55,000/- along with its interest at the rate of 12% from 26.11.2007 till realization. Towards hardships and difficulties of the Complainant Rs.50,000/- is also to be given by the Opposite Party. The Complainant is entitled for Rs.1,64,868/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 26.11.2007 till realization. 2. The Opposite Party served notice and they are declared exparte. 3. The territorial jurisdiction of the complaint is considered as a preliminary issue. The Opposite Party concern is in Cochi at Kadavanthara all the transaction of the Complaint was done from Cochi. The Opposite Party has no branch office within the jurisdiction of this Forum. More over the cause of action for the complaint wholly or in part belonged to Cochi. Under the provision of Consumer Protection Act Section 11 sub section 1 and 2 this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint. In the result the complaint is dismissed. The Complainant is at liberty to file the complaint in the appropriate Forum. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2008.




......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................P Raveendran
......................SAJI MATHEW