THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM<br /> Present:<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President<br /> Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member<br /> CC No.47/2007<br /> Thursday, the 5th day of June, 2008.<br /> Petitioner : Arun A. Eldo,<br /> Attasseril House,<br /> Valamcode P.O<br /> residing at Parappurath House,<br /> Pallam P.O, Kottayam.<br /> (By Adv. M.J. Joseph Mannarath)<br /> Vs.<br /> Opposite parties : 1. The Principal<br /> Nanda Politechnique College,<br /> Erode, Tamil Nadu.<br /> <br /> 2. Miss. Jayanthi, Tutor,<br /> Nanda Politechnique College,<br /> Erode, Tamil Nadu.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> Petitioner's case is as follows:<br /> Petitioner in search of his higher education course happened to see an advertisement of the opposite party, offering admission to courses for Politechnique. As per the advertisement the petitioner approached the opposite party at Aida Hotel in Kottayam and produced SSLC certificate and T.C before opposite party's officers. The opposite party after perusal given spot admission to the petitioner. The petitioner entrused the SSLC certificate and TC and an advance of Rs. 15,000/- as first year tuition fee to the first opposite party. Petitioner completed his first year study and given Rs. 10,000/- as tuition fee for second year. According to the petitioner due to the severe harassment of one of the tutor named Miss.Jayanthi the petitioner was not able to continue his higher education. So, the petitioner applied for leave. The opposite party <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> has not allowed any leave. Due to deterioration of health of the petitioner he discontinued his course and demanded for the SSLC certificate and TC along with tuition fee for the second year. The opposite parties has not heed to the demand of the petitioner so the petitioner on 28..9..2006 issued a registered lawyers notice to the opposite party. The opposite party sent reply to the notice issued by the petitioner directed the petitioner to meet the first opposite party and collecte the certificates thus the petitioner contacted the first opposite party. The first opposite party instead of giving the certificate threatened the petitioner. The petitioner states that act of detaining the certificate of the petitioner is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. So the petitioner prays for a direction of this Forum to get back the SSLC certificate and TC. He also claimed refund of Rs. 10,000/- remitted by him and cost of the proceedings.<br /> Opposite party has not entered appearance and filed any version even after issuance of notice in this Forum. So opposite party is set ex-parte.<br /> Points for consideration are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs if any?<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The petitioner produced the lawyers notice dtd: 28..9..2006 and the same is marked as Ext. A1 as reply to Ext. A1 the opposite party issued a reply to the petitioner the said document is marked as Ext. A2. In Ext. A2 the opposite party instructed the<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> petitioneer to come and meet the principal to collect the certificate. The petitioner had averred that when he reached the college for collecting the certificate the opposite party threatened the petitioner. The petitioner has averred that he has remitted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as fee for the 2nd year course. But he has not produced any document to prove the same. The case of the petitioner was proved by the documents and his affidavit the opposite party has not entered appearance or tendered any evidence to prove the contention put forth by the petitioner. So, the case of the petitioner stands unchallanged. We are of the opinion that the detaining of the certificates of the petitioner, who already discontinued his course is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. II<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for.<br /> In the result the petition is allowed in part and the opposite party is ordered to return the SSLC certificate and Transfer Certificate to the petitioner. The opposite party is also ordered to pay Rs. 2000/- as cost of the proceedings . Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and sufferings no compensation is ordered. The opposite party shall comply the order with within 30 days of receipt of this order.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 5th day of June, 2008.