IN THETAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE  THE HON’BLE  THIRU. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH  :   PRESIDENT

                      

F. A. No.528 of 2022

 

(Against the Order dated 18.09.2019 made in C.C.No.138 of 2019 on the file of D.C.D.R.C. Coimbatore)

 

Wednesday, the 27^th day of September, 2023

 

 

The Principal,

Cheran Pharmacy College,

Telungupalayam Pirivu,

Perur MainRoad,

Coimbatore – 641 010.                 ... Appellant/opposite Party

 

-Versus-

Mr.V.M.Vijayakumar,

No.2162, Ranimuthu Nagar (Kolipannai),

Velapadi, Poonthottam Nagar Pirivu,

Vellore Corporation,

Vellore – 632 001.                       …  Respondent/ Complainant

 

 

Counsel for the Appellant/opposite party :  M/s. Waraon & Sai Rams

Respondent / Complainant                    :  M/s. K.M.Mrithunjayan

 

This appeal came up for final hearing on 27.09.2023 and on hearing the arguments of both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

 

ORDER

JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH  :   PRESIDENT

   This appeal has been filed by the Complainant under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as against the order dated 18.09.2019  passed in in C.C.No.138 of 2019, by the District Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, Coimbatore, allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent  herein.

2.    The case of the complaint is that his elder son V.V.Jotheeswaran who succeed in the Plus two examination in the year 2018, intended to join in the six years Pharm.D Course in the opposite party’s college and paid Rs.75,400/- on 24.07.2018 for which a receipt was issued.  In the meanwhile, he got admission in the B.Tech (Bio Technology) 4 years course in the Hon’ble Chief Minister Jayalalitha Fisheries Development University through counseling and had joined the said course in the Government College of Fisheries Development, Chennai.  The complainant became sick and hence his wife Tmt.Mythili along with his son went to the opposite party college at Coimbatore on 08.08.2018 and asked for the refund of the advance paid, for which the Principal of the opposite party told that he will talk to the management of the college in this regard and would try to get the amount refunded.  Then the complainant tried to contact by telephone but the Principal of the opposite party did not talk to him.  Again the complainant’s wife went to the opposite party college at Coimbatore on 10.08.2018, 23.09.2018 and 08.10.2018 and had asked for refund of amount and the Principal of the opposite party informed that he would make arrangements to get the amount refunded.  Finally, the complainant was informed that the management has not accepted to refund the amount.  His son did not even attend the college for a single day.  The complainant sent a letter by RPAD on 23.02.2019 giving 10 days time to refund the amount, which was acknowledged by the opposite party.  Because of the non refund of the amount by the opposite party the complainant was subjected to mental agony and sufferings and has incurred unnecessary expenditure.  Therefore, he filed the present complaint to direct the opposite party to refund the advance amount of Rs.75,400/- to him.  

3.  Despite Service, the opposite party has not appeared before the District Commission, and hence he had been set ex parte.

4.   In order to prove the case on the side of the complainant along with proof affidavit filed 2 documents and they were marked as Ex.A.1 and A.2. 

5.  The District Commission after considering the pleadings of the complainant has framed 3 questions for consideration namely:

1) Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service?

2) Whether the opposite party can be directed to refund Rs.75,400/- to the complainant which was paid by him to the opposite party institution?

3)  To what other relief the complainant is entitled to?

With regard to the first question the District Commission by relying upon the Order of the National Commission in Nipun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document