KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL. 304/2009

JUDGMENT DATED. 12.4.2011

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR          : MEMBER

APPELLANT

Jasmine, D/o Augustine,

Panamkattu House, Thodupuzha East, P.O.,

Keerikkodu Kara, Karikkodu Village,Idukki District.

                                   ( Rep. by  Adv. Sri. S. Reghukumar)

                                  Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.          The Principal,

       Govt. Vocational Higher Secondary Education,

       Thiruvananthapuram -36

2.          The Director,

       Department of Vocational Higher Secondary Education,

       Thiruvananthapuram. 36.

3.          The Principal,

       Sri. Raghavendra College  of Nursing,

29, Chimney Hills, Hesaraghatta Main Road,

Chikkabanavara, Bangalore- 560 090.

4.          The  Registrar,

       Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka,

       4^th T Block, Jayanagar,  Bangalore- 560 041 

               (Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.L. Johnson & Wilson Thomas.)

.

JUDGMENT

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      ;      MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.12.2008 of CDRF, Idukki in C.C. 229/05.  The complaint was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondents as opposite parties.  The Forum directed the 4^th opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- with Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant.  This appeal is filed for getting enhancement of the compensation ordered by the Forum below.

The case of the complainant is that she had joined B.S.C Nursing  course and paid Rs. 1,19,250/- to the 3^rd opposite party as fees.  After completing the first year course, she submitted application for the examination and no dues certificate was issued by the 3^rd opposite party to enable the complainant to appear for the examination.  But she did not get the hall ticket for the examination.   Though she approached the authorities, no satisfactory explanation was given to her.  On enquiry, it was revealed that her hall ticket was rejected on the ground that two year vocational course of the first opposite party was not recognized by the 3^rd opposite party.  Though she demanded the money paid towards fees with other expenses, she was threatened that her certificate will not be returned.  According to the complainant the opposite parties colluded and falsely represented that the two year vocational course was recognized equalant to Plus 2 and that she was eligible to get admission for the BSc Nursing course.  Knowing this fact, the 3^rd opposite party collected huge amount from the complainant as fees and she had lost one academic year also.  Hence she filed complaint before the Forum claiming refund of the fees collected with compensation and costs. 

          The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version and contented that there was no deficiency in service on their part.  They submitted that the complainant ought to have placed the matter before the 4^th opposite party for getting her admission regularized. 

          The 3^rd opposite party filed version and contented that the complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties ie. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, Karnataka.  They further submitted that the fee collected by them was for tuition fee, books for the studies, transportation, uniform and clinical facilities etc.  for one year which has been utilized and the complainant  has not produced the original fees receipt  before the Forum below.  More over all the V.H.S.C. passed students faced the similar problems and this opposite party advised the complainant to file a writ O.P. before the Hon’ble High Court.  But she left Bangalore without any communication.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

          The 4^th opposite party was absent before the Forum and was made Ex. Parte. 

          We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and respondents 3 and 4.  There was no representation for respondents 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued for the position that the Forum below ought to have fastened liability on the 3^rd respondent/3^rd opposite party also as they admitted the  complainant and permitted her to study one academic year without the  approval of the 4^th respondent/4^th opposite party.  He argued for the position that the Forum ought to have allowed the claim of the complainant in toto, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.   On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 objected the said contention on the ground that all necessary procedures were adopted by the 3^rd respondent/3^rd opposite party to get approval of the 4^th respondent/4^th opposite party.  He further submitted that the complainant has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of her contentions and the Forum below passed the impugned order only based on the pleadings of the complainants.  He argued for the position that mere pleadings without evidence can not be accepted.  Thus he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

          The learned counsel gave much emphasis to the point that the compensation of Rs. 7,000/- ordered by the Forum below is very much on the lower side considering the loss, difficulties and mental agony endured by the complainant.  He has also filed a petition to accept five documents which were not marked before the Forum below.  He submitted that the complainant had produced these documents before the Forum below and due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Counsel  the documents could not be marked.    We have gone through the documents produced at the appellant stage.   Though we find that it was a mistake on the part of the counsel for the complainant to get the documents marked,   considering the circumstances, we find that it will be just and proper to give an opportunity to the complainant to get the documents admitted in evidence.  The complainant has a strong case regarding the low compensation ordered; it is also found that the Forum below has passed the order without any oral or documentary evidence from the side of the complainant.  We find that it will be proper to give an opportunity to the complainant to produce the documents before the Forum and to permit all the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.

          In the circumstances, we find that a considered order is necessary appreciating the evidence of the complainant also.  Hence the impugned order dated. 19.12.2008 passed by the CDRF, Idukki in C.C. 229/05 set aside and the matter is remanded to the Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law.  The Forum below is directed to permit all the parties to adduce further evidence in support of their contentions,   if they so desire and dispose of the matter on merits.   The matter will stand posted before the Forum on 31.05.2011. 

The office is directed to transmit copy of this order along with L.C.R. to the Forum urgently.  

                                    VALSALA SARANGADHARAN  :   MEMBER

                                 S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR         :    MEMBER

ST