State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Principal, vs V.Jayaprakash, on 28 July, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 170/2002
(Arisen out of order dated in Case No. of District )
1. The Principal,Oriental School of Hotel management
Lakkidi,Wayanad
....Appellant
Versus
1. Jayaprakash.V
Attingal, Trivandrum
....Respondent
1. Jayaprakash.V
Attingal, Trivandrum
....Respondent
BEFORE :
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA
, PRESIDING MEMBER
PRESENT:
None for the Appellant None for the Respondent *JUDGEMENT/ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIURVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 170/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 28.7.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Principal, : APPELLANT Oriental School of Hotel Management, A Unit of the Malabar Hotel Management and catering Promotion Trust, Valley View P.O., Lakkidi, Wayanad-673 576.
(By Adv.Shyam Padman) Vs. V.Jayaprakash, : RESPONDENT Rishimangalam, Attingal.P.O., Thiruvananthpauram District. (By Adv.R.Anilkumar) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers by the appellants/opposite parties in the OP, from the order passed by the CDRF, Wayanad Kalpetta in the file of OP.No.192/2000 dated 21.12.2001. The complainant in the OP, is the respondent. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing both the appellants and respondents were present and the counsel argued their own cases. This appeal prefers from the order of the Forum below; allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with 12% interest from 31.7.96 till payment and also a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation.
2. This impugned order was challenged in the appeal by the appellant. The complainant have a case that his son joined in the opposite parties educational institution by name Oriental School of Hotel Management for the diploma course in Hotel Management. As per instruction of the opposite party the complainant remitted a sum of Rs.56,000/- as service charge on various heads vide Rs.25000/- paid on 11.7.96 towards registration fee, Rs.20000/- paid on 31.7.96 towards 1st term fees, Rs.5000/- paid on 31.7.96 towards caution deposit and Rs.1500/- paid on 31.7.96 towards hostel fees. He contended that he paid further sum of Rs.4500/- as pocket money. The opposite party assured the complainant that the opposite parties institution was recognized by the concerned authorities of Central and State Government and also offered various job opportunities. He passed the diploma course conducted by them. Hence the complainant entrusted transfer certificate and the other documents to the opposite parties. The son of the petitioner returned from the institute of the opposite party for Onam vacation during September 22 to 27 and he narrated the various difficulties and the harassment suffered by him in the institution.
3. The complainant also stated that due to ill treatment and bad climate of the area the petitioner's son became a patient. Hence the complainant enquired regarding the opposite party's institution and found that the institution is not recognized by central and state government. Due to this reasons his son was discontinue and demanded for the refund of the fee remitted by him on behalf of his son and he has continued the correspondence regarding the same till 19th June, 2000. On 19th June 2000 and the opposite party agreed to refund the remitted amount in response to the complainant's representation dated 20.5.2000. But this amount was not remitted hence he has filed this complaint claiming refund of the remitted amount of Rs.56,000/- with 18% interest and for return of the transfer certificate and other documents of his son given to the opposite party and for a compensation of Rs.3000/- against mental agony and sufferings.
4. The opposite parties appeared and filed detailed written version and they denied all the allegations and averments contained in the complaint except those are admitted. According to them the complaint was filed after the expiry of 2 years of the cause of action arised and it hit by law of limitation according to the Consumer Protection Act. They contended that the son of the complainant was discontinued the course not due to the uncareless and negligence from the part of the opposite parties and they did not give any guaranty that this institution was recognized by the State Government and Central Government. The reason for the non remittance of the amount claimed by the complainant is specifically mentioned in the reply lawyer notice sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. After this lawyer notice there was no representation or demand for the money from the part of the complainant on any person or any other person on his behalf. The counsel for the appellant mainly argued the points of limitation. He cited 2 decisions to support his case. But without this citations also the respondent/opposite party is also not having any case that they filed the complaint within 2 years after received the reply notice. The decision did not support his argument even this decision cited by the counsel for the respondent/complainant to get over this hurdle. According to the complainant they mentioned in the complaint that the opposite parties was ready to pay the amount after it put this matter before the board meeting. This is the only averment mentioned in the complaint in this point. According to the counsel for the respondent/complainant PW2 is a witness cited by the complainant to save the delay of filing the complaint within the stipulated time. But nowhere in the complaint, the complainant mentioned about PW2. It is nothing but an attempt taken by the complainant after file the complaint, to get over the delay of filing the complaint in right time.
5. No where in the prospectus or any where stated that the diploma offered by the appellant/opposite party was recognized by the state and central government. This Commission is seeing on the basis of the detailed arguments of both learned counsels and perused the entire case records from the lower court. It is mandatory to file this complaint within the time of two years as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. As per the evidence we are seeing that everything was going on. The appellants also did not claimed that they were conducting the institution and the course. According to the law and principle they prepared and served a prospectus to the complainant with such a prequitionary caution and to get over the legal questions. As per the evidence it is seeing that the son of the complainant was reluctant to attend the course due to his own psychological or environmental reasons.
6. We are not accepting the plea that the opposite parties who conducted institution and course according to the strict provisions of the law the complainant did not contended that the institution was a fraud one.
The order passed by the Forum below not according to the strict provisions of law and evidence. This Commission is seeing some reasonable cause and apparent error to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The order passed by the Forum below is illegal and irregular. Thus both Forum and Commission are, fact finding bodies. This machinery shall not be deviated from the principle & procedure of law and evidence. In the result this appeal is allowed and setting aside the order passed by the Forum below. Both the parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. The points of the appeal answered accordingly.
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ps
Pronounced
Dated the 28 July 2010
[ SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA]
PRESIDING MEMBER