M.C.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI vs Gopinathan Nair

THE opposite party in O.P. No. 457/93 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam is the appellant. THE appeal is against the order dated 31.5.94 granting an amount of Rs. 12,000/- to the complainant.

THE complainant''s case is that pursuant to an advertisement, the complainant contacted the opposite party who promised him to secure admission for the B.Ed course of Magadha University. THE opposite party stated that the complainant can sit for the B.Ed Examination of 91-92 and collected Rs. 12,000/- for the same. THE opposite party did not secure him admission except conducting certain classes at Kundara and the complainant could not sit for the examination. Alleging deficiency of service complainant claimed refund of Rs. 12,000/-plus Rs. 5,000/-as damages. The opposite party filed version stating that the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant was admitted to the course but the University did not conduct the examination for the said year, due to the law and order situation. The complainant secured an employment and did not attend classes conducted for the course by the opposite party. The version further stated that there is no deficiency of service and craved for the dismissal of the complaint.

The District Forum found that Rs. 12,000/- was received by the opposite party but the complainant was not admitted to the regular course for B.Ed of Magadha University which has been recognised by Kerala University. This is deficiency of service. Hence the District Forum ordered refund of Rs.12,000/-.

WE went into the respective pleadings of the parties and the order of the District Forum in the light of the various exhibits produced by both parties. WE note that the complaint is filed by Gopinathan Nair, the father-in-law of the student Vijayakumaran Nair who was admitted to the B.Ed course of Magadha University. It is also in evidence that the appellant has secured admission for the student of the B.Ed course in Kanishka Teachers Training College affiliated to Magadha University in Patna to sit for the examination for the year 1991-92. The fact that the student was given coaching in Venus Academy conducted by the appellant for some time is also not in dispute. No examinations were being conducted by the Magadha University form 1989 onwards till 1994 due to disturbance of students. Every year the examination is being postponed. At the end of 1992 the appellant received a communication from the respondent saying that he has entered Government service and requested for return of his certificates and enquired whether examination dates are fixed. By another letter dated 19.3.93Ex.P3 the student requested that arrangements may be made to return the certificates. It is also proved that on 12.4.93 all the certificates of the students entrusted with the appellant were taken back and abandoned the idea of appearing for the examination. It is thereafter that the father-in-law thought of approaching the Forum for return of the amount paid to the appellant on the ground of deficiency of service. It is curious that the student Vijayakumaran Nair from whom amount was received did not even make a request for return of the money. This is probably because he had attended the course and discontinued on his own volition on getting a Government job. It is true that he was prepared for the examination to be conducted for the 1991-92 course. The fact that Magadha University could not conduct the examination from 1989 onwards and it was conducted only in 1994 is also not in dispute. If so the appellant cannot faulter for not presenting the student for the 1992 examination. The amount handed over seems to have been utilised for obtaining admission in the Kanishka Teachers Training College affiliated to the Magadha University and towards expenses for conducting classes for coaching the students including Vijayakumaran Nair. In such a case and as Vijayakumaran Nair left voluntarily we cannot say that there is deficiency of service. It was argued before us on behalf of the appellant that the complainant is the father-in- law of the student who was no locus standi to file the complaint. The receipt issued for Rs. 12,000/- is in the name of Vijayakumaran Nair, . There is no evidence that it is the father-in-law who paid the amount. In the circumstances we are constrained to hold that the complainant Gopinathan Nair has no locus standi and he cannot be termed as a consumer.

IT was argued for respondent/complainant that the newspaper advertisement was for admitting students to the regular course. Complainant also says so. IT is clear from the letter of authority produced by the appellant that Sri M.C. Prabhakaran Pillai, Principal, Venus College, Kundara 691501, Kollam is empowered to select students for admission to B.Ed regular course of Magadha University. IT also evidences that the appellant is permitted to conduct the coaching classes as per the syllabus and directions of the Kanishka Teachers Training College. We have already found that there is no deficiency of service and complainant is not a consumer. Hence we have no other alterations than to set aside the order of the District Forum and allow this appeal. Appeal is allowed however without costs. Appeal allowed.