State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R. Balamurugan, 2, Sampath Nagar, Opp. ... vs . The Director Pride,Periyar ... on 15 July, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.A.K. Annamalai, M.A., B.L., M.Phil., JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MEMBER F.A.468/2010 [Against order in C.C.79/2009 on the file of the DCDRF, Erode] DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2011 R. Balamurugan, | Appellant/ Complainant S/o. Ramamurthy, | 2, Sampath Nagar, Opp. District Court, | Erode 638 001. | Vs.
1. The Director PRIDE, | Periyar University, | Respondents/ Opposite Parties | |
2. The Co-ordinator, | Net Study Centre, Centre Code No.1191, | [ Pride-Periyar University], | Mettur Road, Erode. | This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 04.07.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order, of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant : M/s.B.L. Lavanya, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respts/Opposite Parties : M/s.T.T. Ravichandran, Advocate.
A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The appellant / complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties, claiming for Rs.9 lakhs as compensation for the deficiency of service, negligence by the opposite parties in considering his admission through Distance Education and Rs.1,688/-
with 18% interest per annum towards the amount paid and another sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of expenses from the opposite parties.
3. The complainant for the year 2007-2008 in order to join M.A. Human Rights, Post Graduate Course through Distance Education in the first opposite party through the second opposite party as coordinator, obtained application and prospectus and paid Rs.1281/- and Rs.324/- by way of Demand Draft in favour of first opposite party and second opposite party respectively and thereafter there was no response regarding the admission for the course for more than several months and when contacted the second opposite party and in spite of letters sent by the complainant as there was no response and because of the negligence, he was not in a position to study his higher course and the act of the opposite parties would amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and thereby the complainant come forward with this complaint.
4. The first opposite party denying the allegations of the complainant in the Written Version stated that there is no nexus between the complainant and the first opposite party and the complainant approached only the second opposite party and the complainant is not a consumer against the first opposite party and the first opposite party is not an necessary party to the complaint.
5. The second opposite party contended that the complainant had already applied for MBA course in Alagappa University and in order to collect the details regarding the same, he had moved with the second opposite partys ex-employee one Ramesh and thereby became friends and the said Ramesh committed misappropriation and fraud in the second opposite partys Study Centre and he was stopped from his employment and thereby in order to take vengeance against the second opposite party through the complainant, he had made some false documents by suing the second opposite partys Office seals after the second opposite party had not received any Demand Draft from the complainant and the complainant approached the second to drop action against the Ramesh and if it is done so, he would not proceed with any case and hence agreed for the same no reply was given for the notice and the complainant is not a customer and no deficiency against the second opposite party.
6. On the basis of an enquiry, the District Forum dismissed the complaint by holding that the complainant failed to prove the deficiency against the opposite parties.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant come forward with this appeal and contended that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without appreciating the document filed by the complainant. On considering the both sides averments, arguments and contentions, it is no doubt that the complainant had not established any proof or evidence, directing to link with the first opposite party in any way regarding alleged intended admission for M.A. course through Distance Education with the first opposite party and so far as the contention to prove that he is a consumer against the first opposite party, no proof for any service or consideration rendered against or for first opposite party. Even though the second opposite party is said to be the coordinator for the first opposite party as a study centre, it was not denied that the second opposite party alleged that one Ramesh was under his employment and for his alleged malpractices, he was removed from the service and the said Ramesh had played game with the complainant regarding collection of admission fee etc., even though the complainant filed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 bank challans for the purpose of obtaining Demand Drafts to the extent of Rs.1281/- and Rs.324/- towards the admission fees and study centres fees, no proof for obtaining of Demand Drafts or copy of Demand Drafts were produced to prove actually for those amounts, Demand Drafts were obtained and handed over to the first opposite party and second opposite party respectively. The second opposite party denied the receipt of any such Demand Drafts from the complainant.
Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 the Counterfoil challans for obtaining Demand Drafts from the IOB, Erode Branch. But there is no entry relating to the issuance of Demand Drafts or any bank endorsement for the same were found on. Even for the sake of argument, if those Demand Drafts are said to have been obtained from the Bank since there are possibilities to get back the money for the Demand Drafts value by surrendering those Demand Drafts to the Bank for cancellation, unless it is proved that those Demand Drafts were really handed over to the first opposite party through the second opposite party, production of challans Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 for the purchase of Demand Draft are not sufficient. Hence, the complainants version that he had paid the amount through the Demand Drafts for the first and second opposite parties for the course cannot be accepted.
Regarding the acknowledgement alleged to have issued by the second opposite party in Ex.A3, entries are not tallied with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and on the top of the acknowledgement, it is mentioned as Manonmani Sundaranar University and in the Written Version, the second opposite party alleged that the complainant also applied for MBA course in Alagappa University and in those circumstances, unless it is proved that the acknowledgement entries found in Ex.A3 are relates to the first opposite party or second opposite party services, which cannot be accepted as relevant documents and the District Forum in its order, has stated that mere for the reasons that the opposite parties have not given reply for the letters sent by the complainant as Ex.A5 and Ex.A7 that itself cannot cause any deficiency of service. This finding can be accepted as a reasonable one and since the second opposite party alleged that there are criminal activities in this matter by one Staff Ramesh engaged in their Study Centre there cannot be any consumer relief for the complainant in this regard and thereby considering all the aspects from the both sides and from the materials in this case, the District Forum has rightly concluded that the complainant has failed to prove his case against the opposite parties regarding the deficiency and in this finding, we feel that there is no need for any interference, thereby the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode, in C.C.79/2009, dated 08.07.2009. There will be no order as to costs.
VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT