DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2024
Filed On: 11/11/2022
PRESENT
Shri. D.B. Binu President
Shri. V. Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C. NO. 514/2022
COMPLAINANT
Sudeep B., S/o R. Balaraman, MRA 17(34/2237) Pallath Lane II, Prasanth House, Mamangalam, Palarivattom P.O., Kochi-682025, Ernakulam.
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Mr. Jeenes (Director of Adarsha Group of Institutions), Jnanaganga Nagar, Mariyappanapalaya, Bangalore 560056, Karnataka.
- Mrs. Priyadarshini (Principal), Adarsha College of Nursing, Jnanaganga Nagar, Mariyappanapalaya, Bangalore 560056, Karnataka.
FINAL ORDER
D.B. Binu, President.
1.A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant's daughter was admitted to Adarsha College of Nursing, Jnanaganga Nagar, Bangalore 560056 on 12/07/2022 and an advance payment of Rs 25,000 was made on the same day. A few days later, the complainant's daughter was admitted to AIIMS, Edappally, Ernakulam, and the complainant informed Adarsha College of Nursing, requesting a refund of the amount since the daughter would no longer join the college. Despite multiple attempts to contact various concerned individuals at Adarsha College, the refund request was denied. The complainant was not informed at the time of admission that the advance payment was non-refundable, and this was also not mentioned in any documentation provided by the college.
On 12/07/2022, the complainant remitted an amount of Rs 50,000 to Adarsha College of Nursing, Kengeri, Outer Ring Road, Jnanaganga Nagar, Mariyappanapalaya, Bangalore 560056 through Google Pay (from account no. 15691000002718 HDFC). Out of the Rs 50,000 paid, Rs 25,000 was the advance amount for the complainant's daughter, and the remaining Rs 25,000 was for another student. The payment was made to Adarsha College of Nursing, holding account no. 7111955298 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bangalore.
The complainant seeks the following reliefs: a refund of Rs 25,000, compensation for inconvenience amounting to Rs 5,000, and legal expenses of Rs 2,000.
2. Notice
The commission sent notices to the opposite parties. However, they did not submit their versions, and as a result, the case was set to proceed ex parte.
3. Evidence
The complainant did not file a proof affidavit but produced two documents along with the complaint before the commission:
- The proof of payment via Google Pay
- The admission letters.
4.The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
- The issues mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit and did not adhere to the required procedures outlined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Despite being given several chances, the complainant consistently neglected to provide a proof affidavit. The complainant did not appear before the commission after May 29, 2023. Subsequently, he failed to present his evidence and was notably absent on the initial dates of the case, demonstrating a pattern of non-attendance. As a result, the commission directed the registry to inform the complainant on January 2, 2024, to appear and submit a proof affidavit. The registry informed the complainant by phone about the required appearance and further steps. However, due to the complainant's ongoing absence and failure to provide evidence, the commission has no option but to proceed with resolving the complaint based on the available evidence. Despite multiple opportunities to comply, the complainant has neither submitted the required affidavit nor appeared before the commission, indicating a disinterest in pursuing the case.
In a catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In the case of SGS India Ltd vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr., this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.”
The Commission proceeded to analyze these issues in detail:
In a series of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the Commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. As stated in the case of SGS India Ltd vs. Dolphin International Ltd (2021 AIR SC 4849), "the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act." It is the complainant who approached the Commission, and without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant. We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we found that the case presented by the complainant is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of July, 2024.
Sd/-
D.B. Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 514/2022
Order Date: 19/07/2024
