State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Abc Study Links vs Ajeeshmon C on 11 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KERALA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/695/2024
M/S ABC STUDY LINKS
PRESENT ADDRESS - REPRESENTED BY VENUGOPAL S G GENERAL MANAGER JOS
BIDING JOS JN ERNAKULAM ,KERALA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
AJEESHMON C
PRESENT ADDRESS - CHITHAMTHARAYIL HOUSE PATHIRAPALLY ALAPPUZHA ,KERALA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
NEMO
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NEMO
DATED: 11/12/2025
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.695/2024 JUDGMENT DATED : 11.12.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.67/2019 on the files of DCDRC, Ernakulam) PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:
M/s ABC Study Links represented by Venugopal S.G., General Manager, S/o Govindankutty Menon, Jos Building, Jos Junction, Ernakulam, Kochi - 682 016 (by Adv. P.T. Girijan) Vs. RESPONDENT:
Ajeeshmon C.T., S/o C.X. Thomas, Chithamtharayil House, Pathirapally P.O., Alappuzha - 688 521 (by Adv. Mishal M. Dasan) JUDGMENT SRI. AJITHKUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER The opposite party in C.C.No.67/2019 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short, the District Commission) is the appellant.
2. The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, an educational consultancy through whom the complainant had sought for admission for postgraduate course in Robotics/Mechatronics in any one of the 27 universities in Italy. The opposite parties had assured the complainant that the complainant is eligible to get admission in the courses and demanded Rs.59,000/-(Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand only) for their services. An additional demand was also raised for Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for achieving an IELTS score of 6. After the fulfilment of all the formalities, the complainant was informed by the opposite party that the complainant was not qualified for getting admission in the Robotics or Mechatronics in the desired courses. They suggested an alternative course in Energy Engineering and Transport System Engineering, which the complainant never sought for. Since the complainant had doubts about the information furnished by the opposite party, they contacted the well-known agencies and came to know that there was no restriction in his eligibility for securing admission to the course intended. In the said circumstances, the complainant had alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party.
3. The opposite party had entered appearance and filed written version by claiming that their consultancy is having 33 years of experience in this field. The opposite party would admit that the complaint had availed the consultancy service on the basis of the advertisement made by them regarding the courses in Italy. Despite being informed about the low academic achievements of the complainant in securing admission for the courses, the complainant insisted in seeking admission. As a precaution, the complainant had signed a commitment letter and a special declaration stating that the opposite party did not guarantee admission or visa success and he would bear any loss if either was unsuccessful.
4. After the payment of non-refundable counselling fees and additional service charges, the opposite party had promptly applied for his admission to Sapienza University of Rome for September 2019 intake. However, after the application process had started, the complainant had decided to cancel the admission citing an opportunity to an employment abroad. The opposite party had advised the complainant to submit a written cancellation request for processing the refund, but the complainant did neither comply with the request nor collect the refund. After elapsing a period of one year, the opposite party had received a complaint alleging that the complainant was misled with a demand for refund of the full amount. The application sent to Sapienza University of Rome was rejected in March 2019 and they are still willing to refund the amount as per the terms the complainant is willing to. The case of the opposite party is that their consultancy operates as a business and not as charity and they would seek for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant had filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. 11 documents were marked on the side of the complainant as Exhibits A1 to A11. When the matter was posted for the evidence of the opposite party, the opposite party remained absent. The opposite party was set ex-parte.
6. Basing upon the evidence of the complainant, the order was passed.
7. The complainant appeared through counsel. Records from the District Commission was called for and perused.
8. Heard both sides.
9. On a perusal of the proceedings of the District Commission, it is seen that on 07.04.2021 the opposite party had appeared in person and filed the written version along with vital documents such as signed commitment letter, signed special declaration executed by the complainant. Without adverting to the documents produced in support of the written version, the District Commission had passed the impugned order by setting the opposite party ex-parte.
10. The application form submitted by the complainant, the special declaration for Italy study program signed by the complainant, G-mail communications dated 09.01.2019, 02.03.2019, 09.06.2019, final commitment authorisation and consent signed by the complainant were seen filed by the opposite parties. But none of these documents were considered by the District Commission in the impugned order. As per section 13(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the opposite party had filed a written version by disputing the allegations contained in the complaint and also filed documents in support of the version. When the opposite party has filed the written version, they cannot be set ex-parte and no order can be passed without adverting to the documents filed in support of the written version.
11. On 22.10.2022, the complainant had filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with five documents. No copy of the proof affidavit filed on 22.10.2022 is seen served on the opposite party. Subsequently, on 31.01.2024, the complainant filed I.A.No.123/2024 to reopen the evidence. When evidence was reopened, no notice is seen issued to the opposite party and the matter was proceeded ahead by setting the opposite party ex-parte. When the opposite party appeared in person who had already filed written version and documents in support of his contention, question of setting the opposite party ex-parte would never arise.
12. On a perusal of the order passed by the District Commission, it is seen that initially the documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exhibits A1 to A5. But as per the proceedings dated 08.08.2024, the documents were again marked as Exhibits A1 to A11. Though four receipts produced by the complainant were marked as Exhibits A1 to A4, the receipt dated 09.11.2018, evidencing the payment of Rs.29,000/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand only) alone, is seen marked as per the order dated 08.08.2024.
13. The exhibits were already received in evidence and marked as Exhibits A1 to A5, the District Commission ought not have marked the very same documents by assigning different marking and it had created confusion. The procedure adopted by the District Commission in marking the documents on two occasions by assigning two numbers is improper. The District Commission ought to have considered the fact that the opposite party was appearing in person. In the event if a party remains absent and if any application has been filed, the complainant ought to have been directed to issue notice to the opposite party before reopening the evidence. Though the complainant was directed to furnish proof before the District Commission after serving notice on the opposite party, without obtaining the proof regarding the service of notice on the opposite party, the District Commission, as per order dated 25.07.2024, set the opposite party ex-parte. When the opposite party had filed written version and documents in support of the version, it was obligatory on the part of the District Commission to consider the documents produced in support of the version to pass an order on merits. Therefore, the final order passed by the District Commission is found unsustainable. The order dated 21.05.2024 setting the opposite party ex-parte is also liable to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, order dated 06.02.2019 allowing the complaint and the order dated 21.05.2024, setting the opposite party ex-parte are set aside, and the case is remitted back to the District Commission with a direction to decide the matter afresh after providing opportunity to the opposite party to adduce evidence in accordance with law.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant, on proper acknowledgment.
JUDICIAL MEMBER
AJITH KUMAR D. :
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
SL
..................
SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
PRESIDENT
..................
SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D
JUDICIAL MEMBER
..................J
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R
MEMBER