Andhra Pradesh
Visakhapatnam-II
CC/188/2012
Marni Ramakrishna - Complainant(s)
Versus
All India Management Association - Opp.Party(s)
Y. Prathap Kumar
17 Jun 2015
ORDER
Date of Registration of the Complaint:20-06-2012
Date of Order:17-06-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT
VISAKHAPATNAM
P r e s e n t:
1. Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,
President
2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,
Lady Member
3. Sri C.V. Rao, M.A., B.L.,
Male Member
Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 2015.
CONSUMER CASE No.188/2012
Between:-
Marni Ramakrishna, S/o M. Suryanarayana,
Hindu, aged 31 years, residing at D. No. 37-8-9,
Satya Nagar, Industrial Estate Post,
Visakhapatnam-530007.
….. Complainant
And:-
1.All India Management Association, rep. by its
Authorized Signatory, Centre for Management
Education, Management House, 14, Industrial Area,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2.HUGHES, rep. by its Director, Plot-1, Sector-18,
Electronic City, Gourgaon, Haryana.
3.Techno Soft Solutions, represented by its
Director, D. No. 48-14-35, Opp: Sri Chaitanya
Girls Campus, Rama Talkies Road, Asilametta,
Visakhapatnam-16.
… Opposite Parties
This case coming on 27.05.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Y. Prathap Kumar, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri D.N.Y.D.V. Prasada Rao, Advocate for the1st Opposite Party and Sri Y.N. Srinivas, Advocate for the 2nd Opposite Party and Sri Voona Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for the 3rd Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)
1. The Complainant asks the Forum to pass an award in his favour and against the Opposite Parties as follows: a) To direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.58,500/- i.e., Rs.1,000/- paid on 13.05.2011; Rs.22,500/- paid on 28.05.2011 and Rs.35,000/- paid on 22.11.2011 along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the dates of respective payments till realization, b) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) towards compensation for causing mental agony loosing of his career to the Complainant; c) To pay costs of the Complaint i.e., Rs.25,000/- and d) Pass such other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The Opposite Parties 1, 2 and 3 strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the Complaint.
3. The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that on 13.05.2011 when the Complainant joined in the course offered by the 1st Opposite Party by paying Rs.1,000/-; basing on subsequent telephonic interview conducted by AIMA and its agent HUGHES i.e., the 2nd Opposite Party herein. The Complainant has received a communication from Mr. Mario Anthony Leone on 23rd May, 2011 stating that the Complainant was selected to undergo PGDM course offered by them. On 28.05.2011 the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.22,500/- as course fee and the same was acknowledged by the 1st Opposite Party. On 10th July, 2011 the Complainant received e-mail from the 2nd Opposite Party and the Complainant sent a returned message to check payment already made by him in the month of May 2011. The Complainant received e-mail from the 2nd Opposite Party allotting student’s ID number etc., on 14th July 2011. The Complainant requested the 2nd Opposite Party to inform the address of the local Study Centre at Visakhapatnam on 16th July 2011 followed by reminders on 21st and 28th July 2011. He received an invitation from AIMA i.e., the 1st Opposite Party for Orientation Programme at the 2nd Opposite Party’s office on 6th August followed by an e-mail on 26th August informing that recorded session of the respective module has been dispatched to the HUGHES study centre with an adviser to contact them followed by another message on 7th September from HUGHES seeking confirmation of the receipt of the same. The Complainant received assignment reschedule dates from the 1st Opposite Party on 21st September indicating the dates from 26th September 2011, when as advised by the 1st Opposite Party an amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) has been credited on 22nd November 2011 as second installment fee through Union Bank of India NEFT cell vide reference no SAA 11970418 and confirmation of receipt of the same was sought. The Complainant received further communication from the 1st Opposite Party on 7th December 2011 advising the students to access the question papers and also up to date them with the name of the 2nd Opposite Party’s study centre, the Complainant vide his mail dated 12th December 2011 has furnished address of the study centre etc. to the 1st Opposite Party. On 8th December 2011 the Complainant to his shock and dismay has received a communication from the 2nd Opposite Party that the Complainant has been forced to break due to non-payment of Rs.23,600/- inspite of the fact that the Complainant paid required fees as per AIMA fees schedule and there are no dues from his end. Immediately, the Complainant sent return message to the 2nd Opposite Party. On 12th December the Complainant sent e-mail to the 2nd Opposite Party informing that he did not get his hall ticket and also do not know where the centre is with a request to indicate the details as there is no time left for preparation. On 15th December as advised by Mr. Dharma of AIMA, the Complainant once again verified on website for hall ticket and it was still showing “Exam form not submitted/not eligible to appear in the exam” and the same was communicated to Mr. Dharma expressing anxiety since examinations are scheduled to start on 20th December 201. Again the Complainant sent a mail to Mr. Dharma regarding the exam hall ticket. The Complainant wrote mail to Mrs. Gkour stating that he followed up many times regarding his hall ticket. Again the Complainant sent a reminder to Mr. Dharma on 19.12.2011. On 20.12.2011 the Complainant received SMS from unknown number advising the Complainant to approach Mr. Amith and the Complainant immediately on the same day sent a telegram intimating the issue and thereafter, the Complainant sent a notice to the 1st Opposite Party on 01.02.2012 and the Complainant counsel received a reply from the 1st Opposite Party on 25.02.2012. When due to the acts of the Opposite Parties the Complainant was at loss of peace of mind, academic advancement which he hoped, mental agony, then career progression and fee paid to the Opposite Parties etc. all without any use. Hence, this Complainant.
4. The Complainant filed an affidavit, written arguments and also additional written arguments to support his claim. Exs.A1 to A16 are marked for the Complainant.
5. On the other hand, the 1st Opposite Party resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that in the present case, the Complainant was the only enrolled student at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh in answering the Opposite Party’s programme who used to study and did his assignments at the Hughes centre with classes being conducted online. For the purposes of examination, the Complainant was initially allotted the scheduled examination centre at Hyderabad centre being the official examination centre. The examinations conducted by the 1st Opposite Party are strictly and highly confidential and obviously no institution can compromise on its confidentiality for conducting exams, otherwise, it will not only lose its basic purpose and foundation upon which it has been formed but would also lose its credibility. Shifting of an examination centre is a rare feature with any institution as no institution conducts examination as per the convenience of the students. However, pursuant to request from the Complainant and in order to not cause undue hardship to the Complainant, the Opposite Party agreed to shift the examination centre from Hyderabad to Hughes centre at Visakhapatnam. The hall ticket in favour of the Complainant could only be issued on 21st December, 2011 since Hyderabad was the original exam centre allotted to the Complainant when his initial request came to the 1st Opposite Party. However, when the Complainant again requested for providing the examination centre at Vizag only citing personal reasons and his convenience, the said request was favourably considered by AIMA and the examination centre was shifted from Hyderabad to Hughes Vizag Centre. This decision took some time as centre in Vizag was finalized at the last hour only at the request of the Complainant. For the said purpose, the Complainant did not contact the Opposite Party directly and on the contrary contacted the Opposite Party through his lawyer, which clearly reflected that the Complainant instead of availing the course in a normal manner like any other student wanted to pick up issues and give the whole interaction a legal color. It also reflected that the Complainant was actually either not prepared to take up the examination or did not at all wanted to pursue the course any further, since there was no occasion for his lawyer to intervene in his professional capacity. Despite the fact that there was no examination centre at Vizag and at the request of the Complainant the Opposite Party was trying to shift the examination centre for him at Vizag from Hyderabad, the 1st Opposite Party ensured that the Complainant is able to join for the examination at Vizag from the day he got the hall ticket. In this regard, the Complainant as well as his lawyer spoke to the 1st Opposite Party’s representative in detail on phone, where in order to ensure that six months of the Complainant are not wasted, the 1st Opposite Party tried to help the Complainant by suggesting him to undertake the examination from the said date and the examination for the two subjects for which the examination was already over were to be taken up by the Complainant subsequent to finishing the examination as per date sheet. The said suggestion was given as a pure helping gesture in order to help a student not to falter in his career growth, in fact, the Complainant on phone agreed to appear in the examination on the next day. Accordingly, the 1st Opposite Party ensured that everything was put in its place at the examination centre at Visakhapatnam. However, despite such bonafide and helping gesture shown by the 1st Opposite Party, the Complainant failed to turn up at the examination centre for reasons best known to him. The Complainant was given an opportunity to appear for his examinations so that his semester is not wasted, however, he failed to utilize the said opportunity. The 1st Opposite Party further stated that it has always been standing by the Complainant and looking to find out solutions instead of further getting entangled in issues keeping in mind the career of the Complainant. The 1st Opposite Party did everything to ensure that the six months of the Complainant are not wasted and that’s all the 1st Opposite Party could do, but if the Complainant was unwilling to sit for the examination, then the same in no manner can be attributed to the 1st Opposite Party.
6. The 1st Opposite Party filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to buttress its contention. Exs.B1 to B3 are marked for the 1st Opposite Party.
7. The 2nd Opposite Party also strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that the present dispute relates to the academic/educational programme of AIMA in which the Complainant had taken the admission. The 2nd Opposite Party i.e., HCIL is merely the contractor of AIMA who have provided their Hughes Net Fusion e-learning platform (i.e. satellite linked online lecture studio and classroom infrastructure) and some related facilitation and marketing services to AIMA to enable them to undertake, deliver and conduct their educational programs by means of distant interactive e-learning made possible by the said platform. Under the said arrangement AIMA itself remains responsible for conducting and delivering the programme using the infrastructure facilities provided by HCIL; HCIL has no role or responsibility whatsoever, in any of the academic matters including matters as to actual conducting of the programme as well as conducting of examination and/or issuance of hall tickets etc. for appearing in the examinations conducted by AIMA. These are matters exclusively in the domain of AIMA and handled by them. Admittedly the Complainant had applied to and admitted in the programme by AIMA and has also paid the admission fee directly to them. The exam form was also submitted to AIMA and the hall ticket was also to be issued by them. There is no contract between HCIL and the Complainant, HCIL on the other hand, is contracted by AIMA and provides services in the nature of infrastructure facilities to them. Merely because HCIL extends these facilities on behalf of AIMA to their students to enable them to participate in such programme does not make them a service provider to such students of AIMA. HICL in fact provides their services to AIMA and is paid by them for it. Accordingly there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the Complainant and HCIL within the meaning of these expressions as used and envisaged under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The Complaint is therefore not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. The 2nd Opposite Party stated that it (HCIL) had no role or responsibility in relation to conduct of examination or issuance of hall tickets etc. which were matters in the exclusive domain, operation and control of AIMA. This is also evident from the narration of facts as set out in the complaint. In fact the Complainant had admittedly issued legal notice only to AIMA and not to HCIL before approaching this Forum. Clearly no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainant or against HCIL and none is disclosed in the complaint. HCIL is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the present dispute which is exclusively a matter between the Complainant and AIMA. As such, the complaint as against HCIL is liable to be rejected on this short ground alone or in any case the case against HCIL is liable to be dismissed.
8. The 2nd Opposite Party filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to support its contention. However, no exhibits are marked for the 2nd Opposite Party.
9. The 3rd Opposite Party also strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that the 3rd Opposite Party is a franchise with the 2nd Opposite Party. The 3rd Opposite Party will allow the students with it, if the 2nd Opposite Party communicated the same to it. In this case the 2nd Opposite Party did not communicate with regard to the enrollment of the complaint with the 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant is also did not at any point of time approached this Opposite Party in person or through E-mail and this Opposite Party was made a party only for the purpose of filing this complaint at Visakhapatnam. The 3rd Opposite Party stated that there is no contract between the Complainant and the 3rd Opposite Party nor the Complainant paid any amount to it at any point of time. The Complainant unnecessarily added this Opposite Party to create jurisdiction for the case. The 3rd Opposite Party stated that the complaint is not maintainable against it under laws nor under facts. As such, it is liable to be dismissed in limini. The Complainant is liable to pay exemplary cost for unnecessarily adding this Opposite Party as a party to these proceedings.
10. The 3rd Opposite Party filed evidence affidavit and also written arguments to buttress its contention. However, no exhibits are marked for the 3rd Opposite Party.
11. The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties 1, 2 and 3.
12. After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that there is outright deficiency of service cum unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st Opposite Party. This is so because the Complainant paid the stipulated fee demanded by the 1st Opposite Party. But it utterly failed to provide him the necessary hall ticket to appear in the examination. So, loss to the Complainant was total and irreparable. For no fault of his, the Complainant lost a full academic year. The contention of the 1st Opposite Party that it was trying to accommodate the Complainant and it was working hard to provide the examinations centre at Visakhapatnam for the Complainant alone, etc. etc. is all after thoughts cooked up by the 1st Opposite Party after this case is filed. There is not even a scrap of paper to support any of the excuses put forward by the 1st Opposite Party to escape its liability. It is totally and alone is liable for the discomfiture caused to the Complainant herein. The mammoth suffering caused to the Complainant can be gauzed from the voluminous and futile correspondence made by him with the 1st Opposite Party. As the 2nd Opposite Party is only a facilitator and acted on behalf of the 1st Opposite Party, it is not liable for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant as the said inconvenience was the result of mis-management of the whole affair by the 1st Opposite Party only. As the 3rd Opposite Party is a franchise of the 2nd Opposite Party, the 3rd Opposite Party is also not liable for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant herein. In the circumstances, the 1st Opposite Party is liable to refund the total fee of Rs.58,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 22.11.2011 till the date of actual realization. The 1st Opposite Party is also liable to pay a compensation for causing physical hardship, mental agony, financial loss, loss of academic year to the Complainant. As the Complainant isforced to file this complaint because of the deficiency of service on the part of the 1st Opposite Party, he is also entitled to costs of this Complaint too.
13. In the result, this Forum directs the 1st Opposite Party only: a) to refund the amount of Rs.58,500/- (Rupees Fifty eight thousand and five hundred only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 22.11.2011 till the date of actual realization, and to pay b) a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only), and c) Costs of Rs,5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the Complainant. Time for compliance, one month.
However, the case against the Opposite Parties 2 and 3 is dismissed.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 17th day of June, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Lady Member Male Member
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For the Complainant:-
NO. | DATE | DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS | REMARKS |
Ex.A01 | 13.05.2011 | Confirmation of order Form for E-PGDM Course and paid detail (Trailing Mail) | e-mail print |
Ex.A02 | 23.05.2011 | Offer confirmation from HUGHES (Trailing mail) | e-mail print |
Ex.A03 | 28.05.2011 | Confirmation of applied online application and 1st installment paid details from AIMA | e-mail print |
Ex.A04 | 10.06.2011 | Confirmation of candidate for 3rd batch of AIMA PGDM and requesting for 1st installment from HUGHES (Trailing e-mail Sub: Already payment made by candidate) | e-mail print |
Ex.A05 | 14.07.2011 21.07.2011& 28.07.2011 | Welcome e-mail from HUGHES net education and provided student ID & pass word (Trailing e-mail i.e., for requesting local study centre address, from the candidate | e-mail print |
Ex.A06 | 06.08.2011 26.08.2011 & 07.09.2011 | Announced class schedules and modules and confirmation of dispatch to local centres from AIMA and HUGHES | e-mail print |
Ex.A07 | 16.11.2011& 22.11.2011 | Requesting for progression fee, Trailing e-mail i.e., paid details was sent from candidate | e-mail print |
Ex.A08 | 07.12.2011 | Availability & Confirmation of Hall Tickets from AIMA | e-mail print |
Ex.A09 | 08.12.2011 | e-mail from HUGHES that student has been forced to break down due to non-payment (Trailing e-mail sub-payment paid details | e-mail print |
Ex.A10 | 10.12.2011 | Following up e-mail for Hall Ticket from candidate to AIMA | E-mail print |
Ex.A11 | 12.12.2011 | Follow up e-mail for Hall Ticket from candidate to AIMA | e-mail print |
Ex.A12 | 15.12.2011 | e-mail from HUGHES i.e. the Student was under forced break down/with drawl and he has been rejoined | e-mail print |
Ex.A13 | 08.12.2011 13.12.2011 15.12.2011 16.12.2011 19.12.2011& 21.12.2011 | Trailing mails between candidate AIMA and HUGHES | e-mail print |
Ex.A14 | 12.12.2011 | Local study centre address sent by candidate to AIMA as it request | e-mail print |
Ex.A15 | 01.02.2012 | Notice sent by the Complainant’s counsel to the 1st OP | Office copy |
Ex.A16 | 25.02.2012 | Reply notice addressed by the Ops’ counsel to the Complainant | Office copy |
For the 1st Opposite Party:-
Ex.B01 |
| Tax exemptions granted to AIMA | Photo copy |
Ex.B02 | 31.03.2014 | Balance sheet for the year 2013-2014 | Photo copy |
Ex.B03 |
| Memorandum of Association | Photo copy |
For the Opposite Parties 2 & 3:-
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Lady Member Male Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.