State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Keltron vs P.T.Govindan Nair on 28 January, 2016
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.14/13 JUDGMENT DTD:28/01/2016 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.244/2011 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod, order dated : 29.09.2012) PRESENT SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER APPELLANT Kerala State Electronic Development, Corporation Ltd., (KELTRON), Keltron Equipment Complex, Karakulam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram R/by its Chief General Manager. (By Adv: Sri. Pramod Chandran & C.S. Rajmohan) Vs. RESPONDENTS P.T. Govindan Nambiar, S/o. Karunakaran Nambiar, CC 62, Chinmaya Colony, Vidya Nagar, Kasargod. Akshaya Centre, Garden City Complex, B.C. Road, Vidya Nagar, Kasargod. (By Adv: Sri. K.P. Jayaraj for R1) JUDGMENT
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the 1st opposite party in CC No.244/11 in the CDRF, Kasargod. The 1st respondent / complainant enrolled himself as a student of the medical transcription course advertised by opposite parties 1 and 2. It is alleged in the complaint that on the advice of opposite party no.2 the complainant appeared for entrance examination on remitting Rs.100/-. Thereafter he paid fee as demanded by the opposite parties but they failed to conduct the course and periodical examination and evaluations as provided in their scheme. Thus they committed deficiency in service.
2. The appellant contended before the Consumer forum, that the allegations in the complaint were false. The appellant admitted that the complainant had enrolled as a student of Medical Transcription course conducted by them. They contended that there was an orientation session given to the potential students before they joined the programme. The complainant was not a student when the 1st assignment was given. On the basis of a meeting held at Mumbai on 7/12/09, it was decided to make changes in the training programme to improve quality. Changes had been initiated in December 2009 to convert MT training programme as per association for Health Care Documentation Integrity 'AHDI' the nodal agency for M.T in US guidelines. Changes took effect and syllabus was updated as per 'AHDI' guidelines in January, which is an international standard guidelines. There was short delay in updating and correcting an error in the E-mail provided to the candidate. The complainant did not attend the contact class held on 23/03/2010 at Kasargod. The appellant had announced that the 2nd instalment fee was due on 31/03/2010. Reminder mail was also sent on 6/4/2010. The ID's of students whose fee had not been received before 17/4/2010 were blocked on that day. The complainant was not vigilant in completing the course. He has filed the complaint to make unlawful gain.
3. Before the Consumer forum the complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A9. The 1st opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence but marked Exts.B1 to B9. The Consumer forum finding that the complainant could not complete the course in the intended time due to changes in the certification criteria held that the complainant is entitled to succeed and accordingly allowed the complaint. The decision of the Consumer forum is challenged in the appeal.
4. The grievance of the complainant is that the appellant had failed to conduct the Medical Transcription course as per the scheme provided by the appellant. They also failed to conduct periodical examination and evaluations. According to the appellant the complainant was not vigilant in completing the course. So the question is whether appellant had committed any deficiency in service by not properly conducting the course. It is contented that the ID of the complainant was once blocked by the appellant for the failure of the complainant to remit the 2nd instalment of fee. But the several copy of G-mails marked in evidence show that there were frequent communications between the parties. So it cannot be said that the appellant was not prompt in conducting the course. It is true that as per version itself change in the syllabus of Medical Transcription course was made but that was done for improving the quality of the course and the fact remains that the complainant never abandoned the course for that reason. Deficiency in service is alleged after successfully completing the course. The only allegation is that the complainant could not complete the course in the intended time. There is no complaint regarding the quality of the teaching faculty or the course. The Consumer forum observed that opposite party no.2 was playing delaying tactics for which there is no evidence. Fault or imperfection in imparting education is something that cannot be assessed easily and at any rate the Consumer Forum lacks expertise to do so. Similarly it is difficult to say whether there was erratic or irresponsible conduct of the course as observed by the consumer Forum. All these complaints are raised after the complainant successfully completed the course. He himself is to be blamed when delayed payment of the 2nd instalment of fee was made and when he did not attend the contact class. On an appreciation of the available evidence, it is difficult to say that the appellant had committed deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. Hence the appeal liable to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of CDRF, Kasargod in CC No.244/11 dated 29/09/12 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs in this appeal.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
nb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.14/13
JUDGMENT DTD:28/01/2016
nb