IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
C.C.No. 300/2022
PRESENT
SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT
SMT. S.SANDHYA RANI. BSC, LL.B, MEMBER
SRI. STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER
ORDER DATED: 31-03-2023.
BETWEEN
Amal S.R., 29 years,
S/o Sreekumaran Nair,
NILA, Elampalloor, Kundara P.O.,
Kollam 691 501.
(By Adv.C.Sreekumaran Nair) : Complainant
AND
The Director,
EUROTECH MARITIME Academy,
Saipadmam, 1st Floor,
Kalloor, Kochin 682 017. : Opposite Party
ORDER
Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant is a Marine Engineer. The complainant had availed the service of the opposite party to next Higher Post for consideration, as such the complainant and the opposite party are in the bond of consumer and service provider relationship as defined under Consumer Protection Act.
In this regard the complainant had applied for a short term maritime course named OTF+CTF (Oil Tanker familarisation+Chemical Tanker familarisation) at the EUROTECH MARITIME Academy conducted by the opposite party.
The said Maritime Course was commenced on 29.06.2022 and the opposite party had instructed the complainant to report at the office of the opposite party near Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium at Kaloor, Ernakulam, before 8.10 AM on 29.06.2022. As instructed by the opposite party, the course fee of Rs.5,500/-(Rupees Five thousand and five hundred only) has been paid by the complainant to the account of the opposite party through online mode vide payment receipt No.217414167151. Unfortunately the complainant was late by 5 minutes for reporting before the opposite party on 29.06.2022 which occurred due to the traffic problems of Ernakulam City.
When the complainant reported at the office of the opposite party on 29.06.2022, opposite party refused to allow the complainant for the applied course only due to the lame reason of late reporting. In the circumstances the complainant requested the opposite party either to refund the fee of Rs.5,500/- paid by the complainant for the course or to consider to the next batch of the same course. But the opposite party refused to repay the amount or to consider the amount for the next batch. Thereafter the opposite party demanded and compelled the complainant to pay again Rs.5,500/-( Rupees Five thousand and five hundred only). Again the said amount was paid by the complainant through online mode vide online receipt No.218620401886 for the fee for the same course and the complainant joined the next batch which started on 12.07.2022 and he completed the course and obtained course certificate. Thereafter on 19.08.2022 the complainant sent an Advocate notice to the opposite party and the same was received by the opposite party on 22.08.2022. But the opposite party did not respond to the same and did not payback the amount till this date. The above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part and it is absolutely against the interest of the consumer and it is an unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
Though notice was issued to the opposite party they failed to appear before the Commission, neither made any representation nor took any effort to file version. Hence they were set exparte. Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of examination in chief by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 to P5 documents. Ext.P1 is the copy of online payment receipt No.217414167151 dated 20.06.2022. Ext.P2 is the copy of online payment receipt No.218620401880. Ext.P3 is the legal notice dated 19.08.2022. Ext.P4 is the postal receipt. Ext.P5 is the acknowledgement card.
The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 and P2 documents would establish that the complainant had applied for the short time maritime course on 29.06.2022. The specific case of the complainant is that he is a Marine Engineer. For attaining the higher post in career he had applied for a short term maritime course named OTF+CTF at the Eurotech Maritime Academy. According to the complainant he had remitted an amount of Rs.5,500/- in favour of the opposite party through online payment and made assurance from the opposite party to report before the maritime academy on 29.06.2022 at 8 a.m. But when the complainant reached the academy he was 5 minutes late. So the opposite party refused the complainant from attending the said maritime course. In the circumstances, the complainant had demanded the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.5,500/- or to include him in the next batch of the course to be started. The opposite party was not amenable for the same and he demanded the complainant to pay Rs.5,500/- again to join the course. Complainant remitted Rs.5,500/- as per Ext.P2 online receipt and completed the course and obtained the course certificate. Thereafter the complainant demanded the opposite party through a legal notice to refund for Rs.5,500/- collected by the opposite party in excess. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party had received Rs.5,500/- for the course conducted on 29.06.2022. Thereafter without any reason he refused the complainant to attend the course and instructed to pay another Rs.5,500/- excess to attend the course. There is an obligation on the part of the opposite party that, after receiving Rs.5,500/- from the complainant and to give permission to the complainant in order to participate in the maritime course which they failed to do so.
On evaluating the entire materials we hold that, the complainant was disallowed to attend the short term maritime course on 29.06.2022 without any valid reasons after accepting Rs.5,500/- as the fees of the course. Hence it is evident that the opposite party is illegally withholding Rs.5,500/- of the complainant for their illegal enrichment by refraining from discharging their obligation.
On the basis of uncontroverted testimony of the complainant coupled with Ext.P1 and P2 documents, it can be safely concluded that the complainant has established his case warranting the grant of relief sought for. Hence we are of the view that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the circumstances we hold the view that the complainant is entitled to get an order as prayed for.
In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms:-
- The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.5,500/- collected as excess from the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony, discomfort and inconvenience caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.
- The opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the amount covered by relief No.1 to 3 with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization and from their assets movable and immovable.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of March 2023.
Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD
MEMBER
Sd/-
S.K.SREELA
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI
MEMBER
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Copy of online payment receipt No.217414167151 dated 20.06.2022.
Ext.P2 : copy of online payment receipt No.218620401880
Ext.P3 : The agreement executed on 24.06.2021 between the opposite party
Ext.P4 : legal notice dated 19.08.2022.
Ext.P5 : acknowledgement card.
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
