| Complaint Case No. CC/11/863 |
| | | | 1. Mr. T.R. Udayashankar, | | S/o. Mr. T. Raju, R/at No.50, RAVI AECS 3rd stage, Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore-94, |
|
| | | | | | | | ORDER | COMPLAINT FILED ON: 04.05.2011 DISPOSED ON:30.07.2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 30th DAY OF JULY-2011 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT No.863/2011 ComplainantS OPPOSITE PARTY | 1. Mr.T.R.Udayashankar S/o Mr.T.Raju, Aged about 57 years. 2. Mr.Sureshwar Udayashankar S/o Mr.T.R.Udayashankar, Aged about 17 years, Since Minor, R/by father T.R.Udayashankar Both are residing at No.50, RAVI AECS 3rd Stage, Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore-560 094. Advocate: Sri.L.Mallesh V/s. The Executive, Giraffe learning Ground Floor, HVS Court, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052. EX-parte. | | |
O R D E R S SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT The complainant filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P.) to refund an amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and to return the 5 cheques issued and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with litigation costs. In spite of service of notice, OP failed to appear without any justifiable cause hence placed ex-parte. 3. The 1st complainant filed affidavit evidence in order to substantiate complaint averments. 4. We have gone through the complaint averments affidavit evidence of the 1st complainant and documents produced. After going through all these materials it becomes clear that the 1st complainant is the father of 2nd complainant. The 2nd complainant registered himself with the OP for two years Home Scheme on 19.07.2010 and towards payment of fees, the 1st complainant issued six cheques bearing Nos.477121, 477122, 477123, 477124, 477125 and 477126 dated19.07.2010, 15.08.2010, 15.09.2010, 15.10.2010, 15.11.2010 and 15.12.2010 for Rupees, 5,000/-, 7585/-, 7600/-, 7600/-, 7600/- and 7600/- respectively drawn on Corporation Bank, RMV Second Stage, Bangalore, on behalf of the 2nd complainant. The first cheque was encashed by the OP for Rs.5,000/- remaining 5 cheques remained with OP. The 2nd complainant after joining the course and before attending any classes felt that he could not cope with the time to attend the classes regularly at the institute. Hence, he discontinued the said course, the 1st complainant wrote a letter to OP on 04.08.2010 intimating that 2nd complainant discontinue the course and requested to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- and to return the remaining 5 cheques. The copy of the letter is marked as Annexure-A OP assured, the complainant, he would refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- and also return the remaining 5 cheques without presenting the same for encashment but OP failed to refund the amount and return the cheques on one or the other pretext. The complainant got issued notice on 02.02.2011 to OP. OP has not replied for the said notice, after receipt of that notice OP called the 1st complainant on phone and assured that he would settle the matter shortly but till date the amount has not been refunded and the cheques are not returned. Hence the complainant was made to approach this Forum seeking necessary reliefs. 5. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte leads to draw the inference that OP admits all the allegations made in the complaint. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged sworn statement of the complainant and the documents produced. OP has not replied for the notice issued. When the 2nd complainant has not attended any classes, there was no any justification on the part of the OP in not refunding the amount of Rs.5,000/- and returning the cheques. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the act of OP in not refunding the amount and returning the cheque amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount and for return of the cheques. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complainants filed by the complaint is allowed in part. The OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 04.08.2010 till the date of realization and return the remaining 5 cheques bearing No.477121 to 477126 drawn on Corporation Bank, RMV Second Stage, Bangalore and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of this Order. Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of JULY-2011.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Cs: COMPLAINT FILED ON: 04.05.2011 DISPOSED ON:30.07.2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 30th DAY OF JULY-2011 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT No.863/2011 ComplainantS OPPOSITE PARTY | 1. Mr.T.R.Udayashankar S/o Mr.T.Raju, Aged about 57 years. 2. Mr.Sureshwar Udayashankar S/o Mr.T.R.Udayashankar, Aged about 17 years, Since Minor, R/by father T.R.Udayashankar Both are residing at No.50, RAVI AECS 3rd Stage, Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore-560 094. Advocate: Sri.L.Mallesh V/s. The Executive, Giraffe learning Ground Floor, HVS Court, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052. EX-parte. | | | | O R D E R S SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT The complainant filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P.) to refund an amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and to return the 5 cheques issued and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with litigation costs. In spite of service of notice, OP failed to appear without any justifiable cause hence placed ex-parte. 3. The 1st complainant filed affidavit evidence in order to substantiate complaint averments. 4. We have gone through the complaint averments affidavit evidence of the 1st complainant and documents produced. After going through all these materials it becomes clear that the 1st complainant is the father of 2nd complainant. The 2nd complainant registered himself with the OP for two years Home Scheme on 19.07.2010 and towards payment of fees, the 1st complainant issued six cheques bearing Nos.477121, 477122, 477123, 477124, 477125 and 477126 dated19.07.2010, 15.08.2010, 15.09.2010, 15.10.2010, 15.11.2010 and 15.12.2010 for Rupees, 5,000/-, 7585/-, 7600/-, 7600/-, 7600/- and 7600/- respectively drawn on Corporation Bank, RMV Second Stage, Bangalore, on behalf of the 2nd complainant. The first cheque was encashed by the OP for Rs.5,000/- remaining 5 cheques remained with OP. The 2nd complainant after joining the course and before attending any classes felt that he could not cope with the time to attend the classes regularly at the institute. Hence, he discontinued the said course, the 1st complainant wrote a letter to OP on 04.08.2010 intimating that 2nd complainant discontinue the course and requested to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- and to return the remaining 5 cheques. The copy of the letter is marked as Annexure-A OP assured, the complainant, he would refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- and also return the remaining 5 cheques without presenting the same for encashment but OP failed to refund the amount and return the cheques on one or the other pretext. The complainant got issued notice on 02.02.2011 to OP. OP has not replied for the said notice, after receipt of that notice OP called the 1st complainant on phone and assured that he would settle the matter shortly but till date the amount has not been refunded and the cheques are not returned. Hence the complainant was made to approach this Forum seeking necessary reliefs. 5. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte leads to draw the inference that OP admits all the allegations made in the complaint. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged sworn statement of the complainant and the documents produced. OP has not replied for the notice issued. When the 2nd complainant has not attended any classes, there was no any justification on the part of the OP in not refunding the amount of Rs.5,000/- and returning the cheques. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the act of OP in not refunding the amount and returning the cheque amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount and for return of the cheques. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complainants filed by the complaint is allowed in part. The OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 04.08.2010 till the date of realization and return the remaining 5 cheques bearing No.477121 to 477126 drawn on Corporation Bank, RMV Second Stage, Bangalore and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of this Order. Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of JULY-2011.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Cs: COMPLAINT FILED ON: 04.05.2011 DISPOSED ON:30.07.2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 30th DAY OF JULY-2011 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT No.863/2011 | ComplainantS OPPOSITE PARTY | 1. Mr.T.R.Udayashankar S/o Mr.T.Raju, Aged about 57 years. 2. Mr.Sureshwar Udayashankar S/o Mr.T.R.Udayashankar, Aged about 17 years, Since Minor, R/by father T.R.Udayashankar Both are residing at No.50, RAVI AECS 3rd Stage, Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore-560 094. Advocate: Sri.L.Mallesh V/s. The Executive, Giraffe learning Ground Floor, HVS Court, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052. EX-parte. | | |
O R D E R S SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT The complainant filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P.) to refund an amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and to return the 5 cheques issued and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with litigation costs. In spite of service of notice, OP failed to appear without any justifiable cause hence placed ex-parte. 3. The 1st complainant filed affidavit evidence in order to substantiate complaint averments. 4. We have gone through the complaint averments affidavit evidence of the 1st complainant and documents produced. After going through all these materials it becomes clear that the 1st complainant is the father of 2nd complainant. The 2nd complainant registered himself with the OP for two years Home Scheme on 19.07.2010 and towards payment of fees, the 1st complainant issued six cheques bearing Nos.477121, 477122, 477123, 477124, 477125 and 477126 dated19.07.2010, 15.08.2010, 15.09.2010, 15.10.2010, 15.11.2010 and 15.12.2010 for Rupees, 5,000/-, 7585/-, 7600/-, 7600/-, 7600/- and 7600/- respectively drawn on Corporation Bank, RMV Second Stage, Bangalore, on behalf of the 2nd complainant. The first cheque was encashed by the OP for Rs.5,000/- remaining 5 cheques remained with OP. The 2nd complainant after joining the course and before attending any classes felt that he could not cope with the time to attend the classes regularly at the institute. Hence, he discontinued the said course, the 1st complainant wrote a letter to OP on 04.08.2010 intimating that 2nd complainant discontinue the course and requested to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- and to return the remaining 5 cheques. The copy of the letter is marked as Annexure-A OP assured, the complainant, he would refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- and also return the remaining 5 cheques without presenting the same for encashment but OP failed to refund the amount and return the cheques on one or the other pretext. The complainant got issued notice on 02.02.2011 to OP. OP has not replied for the said notice, after receipt of that notice OP called the 1st complainant on phone and assured that he would settle the matter shortly but till date the amount has not been refunded and the cheques are not returned. Hence the complainant was made to approach this Forum seeking necessary reliefs. 5. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte leads to draw the inference that OP admits all the allegations made in the complaint. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged sworn statement of the complainant and the documents produced. OP has not replied for the notice issued. When the 2nd complainant has not attended any classes, there was no any justification on the part of the OP in not refunding the amount of Rs.5,000/- and returning the cheques. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the act of OP in not refunding the amount and returning the cheque amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount and for return of the cheques. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complainants filed by the complaint is allowed in part. The OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 04.08.2010 till the date of realization and return the remaining 5 cheques bearing No.477121 to 477126 drawn on Corporation Bank, RMV Second Stage, Bangalore and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of this Order. Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of JULY-2011.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Cs: |
