By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking compensation<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant applied for the printed notes for PSC examination [HSST botany dated 26.5.2006] published by the opp.party for his wife’s sister and purchased the notes on 4,4.2006 paying Rs.1250/-. But the opp.party did not supply the entire notes. Though they promised to supply the remaining notes before on10.4.2006, the remaining notes were received only on 26.5.2006 on the date of examination. Due to the irresponsible act of the opp.party, the complainant’s wife’s sister could not appear for the examination properly which was her last chance before becoming over aged.. There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party and hence the complaint. <br /> <br /> The opp.party entered appearance and filed a version contending, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is not a consumer, . since the purchased the notes, for his wife’s sister there is no consumer relationship; between the parties, that the complainant suppressed material facts,that the complainant ‘s wife’s sister joined second opp.parties Kollam Training Centre on 4.4.2006 for HSST Botany Correspondence Course and on that day itself the opp.parties have given the full set notes for the concerned subject covering all the topics, that at the time of delivery of notes the opp.parties offered further material for last minute reference on free of cost, that as per the offer they have despatched notes containing 1481 questions covering more topics on 20.5.2006, that the courier reported that the house of the complainant was locked and the intimation regarding the arrival of materials was given to a neighbor of the complainant and the same was delivered on 26.5.2006 and that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.parties thereafter remained absent at the time of evidence.<br /> <br /> Hence they were set exparte.<br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> [I]Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> [ii] Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> Points [I] & [ii]: According to the complaint he purchased certain notes from opp.parties, for his brother’s wife who was preparing for HSST Botanyexamination, as per Ext.P1 that at the time of giving the 1st part of notes the opp.parties told him that the 2nd part would be send before 10.4.2006, that the 2nd part was not send till 26.5.2006, the date of examination with the result that his wife’s sister could lnot write the exam who become over aged immediately after that examination and there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. The complainant was not cross examined by the opp.parties with the result that his evidence remains in impeached.<br /> <br /> Ext.P1, shows that complainant purchased notes from opp.parties . It is admitted in the version that there are certain last minute notes and that the same were send on 20.5.2006 and that such notes were delivered only on 26.5.2006 ie. the date of exam. The opp.party produced a receipt alleged to be issued by a courier service to show that the notes were sent on 20.5.06 but the same was not properly proved.. Though opp.parties would contend that the house of complainant was locked till 26.5.2006 which was the reason for not delivering the notes in time there is no material worth believable, to establish that aspect. From the un impeached testimony of PW.1 and the admission in the version it can be seen that the notes has two parts and the 2nd part was delivered only on the date of exam which would establish deficiency in service. on the part of the opp.party.<br /> <br /> The opp.party would contend that complainant is not a consumer. The complainant had bought the notes for a member of his family and not for any commercial purpose and therefore we are of the opinion that he is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.parties to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order<br /> Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008<br /> <br /> K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY :<br /> <br /> ADV. RAVI SUSHA :<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />