STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/104/2020 null THE PRINCIPAL-CENTRE IN CHARGE-AIMFILL INTERNATIONAL PRESENT ADDRESS - AVIATION BUISINESS CENTRE,YMCA JUNCTION,ERNAKULAM ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MUHAMMED SHAMEEM PRESENT ADDRESS - PATHPARAMBAN ANAIYANKANDI HOUSE,KARIPPUR(PO),MALAPPURAM ,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:

THE PRINCIPAL-CENTRE IN CHARGE-AIMFILL INTERNATIONAL, BOBY K JOSEPH (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MUHAMMED SHAMEEM, In-Person DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 104/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11.03.2025 (Against the Order in C.C. 210/2017 of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1. The Principal, Centre in Charge, Aimfill International Aviation Business Campus, YMCA Junction, Chittoor Road, Ernakulam.

2. Fazil Mohammed Basheer, Managing Director, Aimfill International (A division nd of Digito Technical Training Service Private Ltd.), 2 Floor, Above Raymond’s Showroom, M.G. Road, Metro Pillar No. 676, Ernakulam-35.

(By Adv. Boby K. Joseph)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Muhammed Shameem P.P., S/o Marakkar, Pathiparamban, Aniyankandi House, Karippur P.O., Karuvankallu, Malappuram-673 638.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 210/2017 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short, “the District Commission”).

2. The complainant was a student under the opposite parties. The complainant joined for Airport Management course. The opposite parties made the complainant believe that they would offer a job oriented course in Airport Management. Accordingly, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) and joined the course offered by the opposite parties on 16.02.2016. Thereafter, on 08.03.2016, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 39,800/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred only). Thus, the complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 42,300/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Three Hundred only) to the opposite parties in connection with the education in the said institution. However, later on, the complainant realized that the opposite parties did not have affiliation from the Bharathiyar University, as assured by the opposite parties.

3. The opposite parties did not file any version.

4. The complainant filed a proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 and A2 were marked for the complainant. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 42,300/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Three Hundred only) to the complainant. The District Commission further directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as litigation costs.

5. Service is complete. However, there is no representation for the respondent.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records.

7. The complainant would contend that the complainant joined the Airport Management course offered by the opposite parties in the institution of the opposite parties after paying an amount of Rs. 42,300/-(Rupees Forty Two Thousand Three Hundred only). Exhibits A1 and A2 are the receipts for the payment of Rs. 42,300/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Three Hundred only) by the complainant to the opposite parties. The complainant joined the course on the assurance of the opposite parties that the said course had affiliation to Bharathiyar University. However, it was found that the course did not have affiliation from Bharathiyar University. In the said circumstances, the complainant asked for refund of