D.O.F. 05.07.2013
D.O.O. 25.01.2013
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. : Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2014.
C.C.No.196/2013
Aswathi K.
D/o. Pradeepan
Koyileriyan House, Kandakkai Road, : Complainant
Velath Gopalan Peedika
P.O. Mayyil, Kannur
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. K. Reghunathan)
1.The Principal
Jaul Educational Trust,
Pathadipalam
Edapally, Nr. History Museum,
Cochin : Opposite Parties
2. The Chairman,
Jaul Educational Trust,
Pathadipalam
Edapally, Nr. History Museum,
Cochin
O R D E R
Sri. K. Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay `25,000 as damage and an amount of `50,000 as compensation to the complainant.
The case of the complainant in brief are as follows : Complainant approached opposite parties, who are conducting Aviation Hospitality and Tourism Course for enquiring for admission to the course. Opposite parties supplied tariff telling that they will comply with Tariff schedule. Believing it to be true complainant jointed to the course paying a sum of `30,000. Complainant should also pay `6,667 monthly. Meanwhile being fell in ill he could not attend the class for one week. When she came back to regular class opposite parties insisted to pay a sum of `15000. On pointing out that such demand was against the tariff schedule it was answered that the course cannot be continued if the amount was not paid. It was an unreasonable demand whereby complainant discontinued the study. Opposite party was cheating the complainant and it lost her future. Lawyer notice was issued on 03.06.2013 to pay `30,000 with interest at the rate of 18%. But they neither sent any reply nor repaid the amount. Hence this complaint.
Forum sent notice to opposite parties. Though notice served properly opposite party did not take care to make appearance before the Forum and to file version. Complainant adduced evidence by means of affidavit evidence and marked Ext.A1 to A5 in order to substantiate his allegations.
What is to be looked into is the question whether there is any deficiency on the side of the opposite party. Ext.A1 receipt goes to show that complainant had remitted `25000 as fees to the opposite party. Ext.A2 is another receipt for a sum of `5000 issued by opposite party. Ext.A3 is the lawyer notice issued to 2nd opposite party calling upon to pay `30,000 with interest @ 18% along with the cost of lawyer notice. Ext.A5 is the acknowledgment. Ext.A4 and 5 proves that lawyer notice was sent to 2nd opposite party and received by 2nd opposite party. Complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit that no reply was sent by opposite party. That itself is an indication that unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party. If opposite party was clean and fair legal notice would have been replied. In the case in hand opposite party did not turn up even though notice sent by the Forum was received by the opposite parties. If they made appearance and version filed the situation would have been different. Opposite party kept away from Forum not without reason but they have no justification for their dealings. Under such a situation the evidence adduced by complainant need not be suspected. Ext.A1 and A2 is large and sufficient to prove that complainant has been paid money to opposite party. Ext.A6 letter goes to show that they have shifted their office to Cochin. In the letter complainant was requested to contact them for settlement. If that was genuine they would have take initiative to make appearance before the Forum and filed version in order to make clear their actual position and to bring the actual facts before the Forum. But they have admitted that they have received the notice from the Forum. They have requested complainant to avoid legal actions in Ext.A6. When legal action initiated and summons issued to appear before Forum they are attempting to escape by the game of hide and seek. Complainant adduced evidence to the affect that opposite party insisted complainant to pay another `15,000 to continue the course whereby complainant was compelled to leave the course which adversely affected the life of complainant. Demanding to pay such an amount against the tariff schedule is a part of unfair trade practice. Demand to pay `15,000 is against the tariff because if it was in accordance with the tariff schedule reply to legal notice would have been sent by opposite parties. So also opposite parties might have been made appearance before the Forum and filed version accordingly. Thus it can be very well presumed that opposite parties demanded the complainant to pay a huge amount `15000, as far as complainant is concerned, over and above the Tariff schedule.
Facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of available documents and affidavit evidence it is crystal clear that there is unfair trade practice amounting into deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, the consequences upon which the complainant failed to continue her studies losing the prosperity of her future. Hence we are of opinion that opposite parties are liable to refund the entire amount of `30000 paid by the complainant together with a sum of `10,000 as compensation and `1000 as cost of this litigation. Hence order passed accordingly.
In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund `30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) together with a sum of `10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of this litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is entitled to get 10% interest from the date of this order till payment. Complainant is also at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Receipt dated 13.07.2011.
A2. Receipt dated 14.07.2011.
A3 & A3(a). Copy of lawyer notice issued to
Both opposite parties dated 03.06.2013.
A4 & A4(a). Postal receipts.
A5 & A5(a). Acknowledgment cards.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
