BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 15^th May 2014

PRESENT

     SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   HON’BLE PRESIDENT

                        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER                                         

COMPLAINT NO.303/2013

(Admitted on 30.11.2013)

Mr. Nivadraj.P,

So Divakaran,

Aged about 18 years,

Residing at Ram Nivas,

Kalarikkade,

Aralam Village and Post. Via Payam,

Kannur District.

Kerala State 670 704.                             …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri  Thimmayya P)

          VERSUS

The Principal,

Sahyadri College of

Engineering and Management,

Adyar,

Mangalore  575 009.                                 ……OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for Opposite Party: Sri. P.P. Hegde)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.          1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant stated that, he had attended the examination conducted by COMDEK UGET 2013 for the seat of Computer Science and Engineering. That before selecting the college complainant personally approached  the Opposite Party and enquired about him  with the fees payable for Computer Science & Engineering seat.  Then the Opposite Party   told to the complainant that he is charging total Rs.1,10,000/- towards the annual tuition fees and complainant believed the opposite party and selected the Opposite Party college. As per the rules the complainant will remit a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the tuition fees to COMEDK UGET and remaining sum of Rs.60,000/- directly paid to the Opposite Party.  It is stated that after allotment of college by COMEDK UGET complainant approached the Opposite Party on 17.7.2013 and submitted the allotment letter issued by COMEDK along with a receipt of Rs.50,000/- remitted by COMEDK to Opposite Party college.  The complainant paid Rs.500/- to obtain application form and while submitting duly filled up application form the opposite party has directed the complainant to pay sum of Rs.80,000/- instead of Rs.60,000/-.  But as per the COMEDK direction and stated by the opposite party that the complainant liable to pay sum of Rs.85,000/- instead of Rs.60,000/-  or else they will not admit the complainant.  Since the complainant not in a position to pay Rs.85,000/- the complainant decided to leave the college and requested to refund Rs.50,000/- the amount remitted by COMEDK. But the Opposite party promised to refund the amount but later turned hostile. However complainant issued a legal notice and the demand made therein not complied by the Opposite party hence the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at 15% per annum from 17.7.2013 till payment along with cost of the proceedings.

II.        1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed memo of appearance but not filed any version.

III.       1.  In support of the complaint,  Mr.Nivedraj.P. (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C4. Opposite Party not filed any version nor filed any affidavit but the opposite party came up with an application to receive version when the case is posted for orders on merits on the previous day, the said application was rejected.

In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

                        We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                                Point No.(i): Affirmative.

                           Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.         

REASONS

IV.       1.  POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):

    In the instant case, the Opposite Party though appeared through their counsel but not bother to file any version within time and entire evidence placed on record requires no further proof.  However, in order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit supported by documents, wherein, it clearly shows that complainant paid Rs.50,000/- towards tuition fee by COMEDK UGET and remaining sum of Rs.60,000/-  supposed to be paid to the Opposite Party.  However in this case the complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- to the Opposite party to join the course of Computer Science and Engineering in Opposite Party institution and later they demanded Rs.85,000/- instead of Rs.60,000/-.  Therefore, the complainant constrained to leave the college and demanded the refund of amount paid by him as he is not availed service from the Opposite Party institution.  Since the Opposite Party not denied the averments made in the complaint filed by the complainant, we hold that the Opposite Party should have refunded the amount collected by the complainant as the complainant not availed any service of the Opposite Party in this case.  Since they have failed to pay amount till this date to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

Under the above circumstances, we directed the Opposite party i.e. Sahyadri College of Engineering and Management., represented by its Principal is hereby directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till the date of payment and also pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as costs of the litigations expenses.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.

            In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. Opposite party i.e. Sahyadri College of Engineering and Management., represented by its Principal shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till the date of payment and also pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as costs of the litigations expenses.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 15^th day of May 2014)

                        PRESIDENT                                        MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr.Nivedraj .P– Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1: 13.7.2013: Original seat allotment letter issued by the COMEDK UGT 2013.

Ex C2 : 13.7.2013: Original letter issued by the COMEDK UGT for having sent the amount of Rs.50,000/-.

Ex C3: 10.10.2013: Office copy of the legal notice issued to the Opposite Party.

Ex C4 : 12.12.2013: Original Postal acknowledgement.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

- Nil-

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:   

- Nil-

Dated:15-05-2014                                         PRESIDENT