D.O.F:08/10/2021

                                                                                                  D.O.O:15/01/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

RA- 5/21 IN CC.No.87/2020

Dated this, the 15^th   day of January 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

1..Adarsh Ram, S/o Ramakrishnan.K

    Nellithave House,

    Kuttikkole P.O, Chengala Via,

    Kasaragod Taluk and District

2. Ramakrishnan K, S/o Chandu Nair                                      : Complainants

    Nellithave House,

    Kuttikkole P.O, Chengala Via,

    Kasaragod Taluk and District

    (Adv: Mohanan Nambiar.M)

                                                And

1. The Director, Karnataka Examination Authority
18.  

Banglore – 560012, Karnataka:Opposite Party

2. The Principal

Vydehi Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre,

82, EPIP Area, Nallura Halli, Mahadepura,

White field Road, Banglore, Karnataka.

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K    :PRESIDENT

     The Petition for review the order dated 11/08/2021 in CC 87/20coming up for orders up on hearing the consumer commission hereby passes the following orders.

     The petition filed by complainant for permission to amend the relief column and thereby to review the final order of the consumer Commission dated 11/08/2021 as prayed for in the petition.

     Notice is sent to the Opposite Party is no representation from Opposite Party.  Prayer in the petition is to permit the complainant to amend the reliefs as no reliefs are claimed against Opposite Party No:2 in the case but by mistake prayer is made to direct Opposite Party No:2 to refund the fee pay compensation and litigation costs.  Instead of direction to make the payment should have been against Opposite Party No:1

     Consumer commission is satisfied that in view of specific averment in the complaint in para 4 that no relief is claimed by complainant against Opposite Party No:2 the relief colum for directing the Opposite Party No:2 for the reliefs claimed in the complaint is evidently a typographical mistake and hence complainant is permitted to correct the mistake accordingly in the complaint instead of claiming relief against Opposite Party No:2 he is permitted to correct it as Opposite Party No:1. 

     In view of the amendment / correction of the reliefs claimed; now correcting Opposite Party No:2 as Opposite Party No:1 consumer commission hereby review its own order dated 11/08/2021 as follows.

     “In Para 2 of the order consumer Commission dated 11/08/200 in cc 87/2020.  Wherever it is written as Opposite Party No: 2 is corrected as Opposite Party No:1 and may read it as Opposite Party No:1”.

     So also in the operative portion of the order instead of directing the Opposite Party No:2 to grant the reliefs allowed there in the order on review may be read as follows. 

     “Therefore complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Party No: 1 to refund           Rs. 52,500/- to complaint with Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation.  In the result review petition is allowed to meet the ends of justice and thus allowed since it is a mistake apparent on the face of record.

      Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/