BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT: SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No: 92/2009 Filed on 30/09/2009 Dated: 15..06..2010 Complainant: Vinayan. P.R., Panampillikkattil Veedu, Kannikulangara Post, Puthenchira, Irinjalakkuda (via) Thrissur – 680 682. (By Adv. V. Madhuripan Pillai)
Opposite parties: The Person-in-charge, Keltron Animation Campus, Advanced Training Centre, Sree Puyam, Mangalam Lane, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram. Managing Director, Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd., IT Business Group, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. M. Anilkumar)
This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2010, the Forum on 15..06..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The allegations in the complaint are as following: The complainant had joined for Digital Editing and Media Animation Course in Keltron Animation Campus (Advanced Training Centre) by paying the fees on 5/9/08. The entire course fee was 67,416/- which was to be paid in 6 monthly installment within the course period of 6 months and the complainant had remitted Rs. 16,854/- on 5/9/08 itself. After the commencement of the class, due to defective UPS, there were no classes on most of the days. Moreover there was only one computer for 4 students and therefore the computer was available only for 20 minutes. Once due to defects in the UPS, classes were stopped for 10 days consecutively. The opposite parties failed to provide classes as assured and hence the complainant claimed for refund. The opposite parties rejected the claim and hence the complainant approached the Police Station from where the opposite parties refunded Rs. 22,472/- out of the total paid amount of Rs. 45,144/- and now an amount of Rs. 22,772/- is yet to be refunded along with other expenses towards food and accommodation during the said period. Hence prays for refund of the amount along with compensation and costs.
2. 2nd opposite party remains ex-parte. 3. 1st opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: That the 1st opposite party is a Training Centre controlled by Keltron a concern owned by Government of Kerala State. The particular course is for 6 months which include Training and Lecture classes. The allegation that UPS of the institution was under repair is not correct. There are so many computers in the institution and the authorities of Keltron used to inspect the institution periodically in order to ascertain the integrity and dignity of the institution. The course which complainant attended is a tough course and the complainant was not in a position to cop with the classes. The opposite party never insisted the complainant to join the course and moreover it is highly important to notice that the complainant is the only person who stopped his studies stating false allegations, this itself will convince the Forum that this is a crooked up story, in order to harass the opposite party and also the complainant wants to tarnish the reputation of the 1st opposite party for the reasons unknown to 1st opposite party, so the allegations put against the opposite party are not sustainable and without any evidence. Because of the compulsion of the Police the 1st opposite party paid Rs. 22,472/- to complainant. So the demand for money from the opposite party are not contemplated in the eye of law. Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost. 4. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P4. Complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. From the contentions raised , the following issues arise for consideration: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
5. Points (i) & (ii): It is an admitted fact that the complainant was a student of the opposite parties and he has been refunded an amount of Rs. 22,472/- by the 1st opposite party. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is whether the allegations raised against the opposite parties in the complaint regarding the conduct of the course is true or baseless and whether the complainant is entitled for any amount from the opposite parties. 6. Exts. P1 to P4 are the advance stamped receipts for the amounts paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. As per these documents, the complainant has paid a total amount of Rs. 44,944/- to the opposite parties out of which he has been refunded Rs. 22,472/-. Whether any amount is due from the opposite parties is to be considered now. Before that, the reason for the withdrawal from the course has to be looked into. According to the 1st opposite party, as the course was a tough one the complainant was not in a position to cop up with the classes and he has stopped the classes stating false allegations. The complainant has filed affidavit stating that there was only one computer for 4 students and due to defect in UPS the classes were not conducted properly. Furthermore there were no classes for 10 executive days. The complainant has not been cross examined and hence all the above allegations stand uncontroverted. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to support their contention. In the absence of the above, we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainant has been forced to withdraw from the course due to the improper conduct of the course by the opposite parties. The above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant has to be compensated. The complainant has claimed refund of the expenses occured towards accommodation and food. Complainant has not produced any document to prove the expenses occurred towards the same. 7. From the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 22,472/- (ie. 44944 – 22472 = 22472) along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- from the opposite parties.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall refund Rs. 22,472/- along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day June, 2010. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
C.C.No. 92/2009
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Vinayan. P.R
II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of advance stamped receipt dated 15/01/09 P2 : " advance stamped receipt dated 15/01/2009 for Rs. 11,236/-. P3 : " advance stamped receipt dated 29/9/08 for Rs. 16,854/-. P4 " " 31/10/08 for Rs. 5,618/-.
III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT: SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No: 92/2009 Filed on 30/09/2009 Dated: 15..06..2010 Complainant: Vinayan. P.R., Panampillikkattil Veedu, Kannikulangara Post, Puthenchira, Irinjalakkuda (via) Thrissur – 680 682. (By Adv. V. Madhuripan Pillai)
Opposite parties: The Person-in-charge, Keltron Animation Campus, Advanced Training Centre, Sree Puyam, Mangalam Lane, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram. Managing Director, Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd., IT Business Group, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. M. Anilkumar)
This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2010, the Forum on 15..06..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The allegations in the complaint are as following: The complainant had joined for Digital Editing and Media Animation Course in Keltron Animation Campus (Advanced Training Centre) by paying the fees on 5/9/08. The entire course fee was 67,416/- which was to be paid in 6 monthly installment within the course period of 6 months and the complainant had remitted Rs. 16,854/- on 5/9/08 itself. After the commencement of the class, due to defective UPS, there were no classes on most of the days. Moreover there was only one computer for 4 students and therefore the computer was available only for 20 minutes. Once due to defects in the UPS, classes were stopped for 10 days consecutively. The opposite parties failed to provide classes as assured and hence the complainant claimed for refund. The opposite parties rejected the claim and hence the complainant approached the Police Station from where the opposite parties refunded Rs. 22,472/- out of the total paid amount of Rs. 45,144/- and now an amount of Rs. 22,772/- is yet to be refunded along with other expenses towards food and accommodation during the said period. Hence prays for refund of the amount along with compensation and costs.
2. 2nd opposite party remains ex-parte. 3. 1st opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: That the 1st opposite party is a Training Centre controlled by Keltron a concern owned by Government of Kerala State. The particular course is for 6 months which include Training and Lecture classes. The allegation that UPS of the institution was under repair is not correct. There are so many computers in the institution and the authorities of Keltron used to inspect the institution periodically in order to ascertain the integrity and dignity of the institution. The course which complainant attended is a tough course and the complainant was not in a position to cop with the classes. The opposite party never insisted the complainant to join the course and moreover it is highly important to notice that the complainant is the only person who stopped his studies stating false allegations, this itself will convince the Forum that this is a crooked up story, in order to harass the opposite party and also the complainant wants to tarnish the reputation of the 1st opposite party for the reasons unknown to 1st opposite party, so the allegations put against the opposite party are not sustainable and without any evidence. Because of the compulsion of the Police the 1st opposite party paid Rs. 22,472/- to complainant. So the demand for money from the opposite party are not contemplated in the eye of law. Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost. 4. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P4. Complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. From the contentions raised , the following issues arise for consideration: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
5. Points (i) & (ii): It is an admitted fact that the complainant was a student of the opposite parties and he has been refunded an amount of Rs. 22,472/- by the 1st opposite party. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is whether the allegations raised against the opposite parties in the complaint regarding the conduct of the course is true or baseless and whether the complainant is entitled for any amount from the opposite parties. 6. Exts. P1 to P4 are the advance stamped receipts for the amounts paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. As per these documents, the complainant has paid a total amount of Rs. 44,944/- to the opposite parties out of which he has been refunded Rs. 22,472/-. Whether any amount is due from the opposite parties is to be considered now. Before that, the reason for the withdrawal from the course has to be looked into. According to the 1st opposite party, as the course was a tough one the complainant was not in a position to cop up with the classes and he has stopped the classes stating false allegations. The complainant has filed affidavit stating that there was only one computer for 4 students and due to defect in UPS the classes were not conducted properly. Furthermore there were no classes for 10 executive days. The complainant has not been cross examined and hence all the above allegations stand uncontroverted. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to support their contention. In the absence of the above, we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainant has been forced to withdraw from the course due to the improper conduct of the course by the opposite parties. The above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant has to be compensated. The complainant has claimed refund of the expenses occured towards accommodation and food. Complainant has not produced any document to prove the expenses occurred towards the same. 7. From the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 22,472/- (ie. 44944 – 22472 = 22472) along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- from the opposite parties.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall refund Rs. 22,472/- along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day June, 2010. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
C.C.No. 92/2009
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Vinayan. P.R
II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of advance stamped receipt dated 15/01/09 P2 : " advance stamped receipt dated 15/01/2009 for Rs. 11,236/-. P3 : " advance stamped receipt dated 29/9/08 for Rs. 16,854/-. P4 " " 31/10/08 for Rs. 5,618/-.
III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
| | [ Smt. S.K.Sreela] Member[HONORABLE MR. Sri G. Sivaprasad] PRESIDENT[ Smt. Beena Kumari. A] Member | | 
