At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
By, THE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN
By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. A. BEENA KUMARI
For the Appellant: N.G. Mahesh, Advocate. For the Respondent: -------
S.S. Satheesachandran : President
Complainant is the appellant. His complaint alleging deficiency in service by the opposite party was dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000 by the lower forum. Aggrieved by the Order he has preferred this appeal.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that persuaded by the advertisement and representation made by the opposite party he joined in a course and appeared for examination remitting the fees thereof on the assurance of the opposite party that degree from a university, on passing of examination, with provisional certificate would be issued. However later he realized that neither the result nor mark list of the examination attended by him had been published and the opposite party had defrauded him. Thereupon he filed the complaint demanding refund of the sum paid with compensation. Opposite party after receiving notice failed to appear before the forum. Complainant filed proof affidavit and produced Exts. A1 to A5 to substantiate the case. The lower forum taking note that the documents produced by the complainant are photocopies and also his omission or failure to produce the advertisement alleged to have been published by the opposite party as stated in his complaint turned down his complaint. Observing that the allegations narrated in the complaint happened at Malappuram district and only the opposite party’s address is stated within the jurisdiction of the forum, the forum held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as well. In that view of the matter complaint was dismissed directing the complainant to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost. Cost was directed to be deposited towards the legal benefit fund within one month.
3. We are of the view that the order passed by the forum is frivoulous and cannot be sustained. The definite case of the complainant is that opposite party who conducted the Regional Institute of Management Studies within the jurisdiction persuaded him to join the course with false representation and collected various sums from him towards course fee, exam fee etc. On such false representation he appeared the examination, but the result of such examination was never published, was his further case. There was no counter evidence and the opposite party proceeded to remain absent after accepting the notice issued by the forum. Prima facie the case of the complainant, supported by his proof affidavit deserved acceptance at least on the allegation of deficiency in service imputed against the opposite party. In case the lower forum found that the photocopies produced are not sufficient, they can call upon the complainant to produce the original that was not done. Complainant failed to produce materials to show defrauding by the opposite party as alleged in his complaint does not in any way affect the core and substratum of the case imputing deficiency in service against the opposite party. The lower forum went wrong in holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the entire transaction had taken place within the jurisdiction. The definite case of the complainant is that the opposite party who conducted the institution persuaded him to join the course and defrauded him collecting amounts towards course fee, exam fee etc. with false assurances. Holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint forum below has not gone into the merits of the case. In any view of the matter t
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
he Order passed by the lower forum is apparently unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. We do so. Reversing the order of dismissal by the lower forum it is directed to take back the complaint on file and dispose it on merits as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Appeal is allowed.