DEAN STUDENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT Vs. ANNIE MATHEW
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Dean Student Service Department
Click here to view full judgement.
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? ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.