M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER - (1.) THE appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC:95/06 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in conducting the course by name M.S. (Finance) Programme. The complainant prayed to get the course fee of Rs. 57,300/ - refunded and also to get compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version before the Forum below contending that there was no deficiency of service on their part; that they could not conduct the training classes because of non availability of required number of students for training classes. Thus, the opposite parties requested for dismissal of the complaint.
(2.) BEFORE the Forum below Exts. A1 to A4 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and B1 prospectus on the part of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and evidence of the case, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated: 30th March 2007 directing the opposite parties to refund the course fee of Rs. 57,300/ - which was collected from the complainant with a compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - and cost of Rs. 500/ - Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred.
(3.) WHEN this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite parties. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted her arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeals. He argued for the position that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and that the respondent/complainant was served with all the study materials for successful completion of the MS Finance Programme. It is further submitted that the respondent/complainant left the course because of her own personal inconvenience and that the opposite parties are ready to refund the fee of Rs. 9,000/ - collected towards training classes fee. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The points that arise for consideration are: - 1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in conducting the MS Finance Programme? 2. Whether the failure on the part of the opposite parties in conducting the training classes can be considered as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in conducting the MS Finance Programme? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated: 30/3/2007 passed by the CDRF, Palakkad in CC: 95/2006? ;