KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FA. No.56/08 JUDGMENT DATED : 07.01.2010 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SHRI. K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Rajan Thomas, Proprietor St.Mary’s Institute of Advanced Studies, Near K.S.E.B, Sulthan Bathery : APPELLANT Wayanad District. (By Advs.Sri.S.Neelakanta Sarma M.S.Manish & S.S.Sreekanth) Vs Alyas P.T., S/o.Thomas, : RESPONDENT Parekkadan, Kolangappara.P.O., Meenangaol (via). (By Adv.Sri.C.V.Bimal Roy) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kalpetta in the file of OP 197/2003 dated 03.10.2007. The appellant is the opposite party prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. The brief of the case is that the complainant is influenced by the publications to join in the institute conducted by the opposite party. He was admitted there for Secretarial Practice Course affiliated to KGTE. The duration of the course was 10 months including training of one month. The fees levied for the course was Rs.11,000/- comprising the examination fee Rs.500/-. The classes handled were not proper. There were not sufficient teachers to train the students. The course was completed on 15.07.2002. Even after completion of course duration the entire portion were not covered. The application sent for the examination of the course was not effectively done and apart from that the examination of the two courses were conducted in two different places on the same day. The opposite party also conducted one examination by himself instead of KGTE. The complainant had lost one year due to the defective and deficient service of the opposite party. The opposite party had not given any training after the completion of the course, though it was assured at the time of admission. The admission of the complainant was for the secretarial practice. The hall ticket issued was for the examination of Computer Word Processing. Ultimately the complainant has lost two years in his career. The complainant is to be refunded Rs.11,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% from 15.10.2001 till the date of payment. In addition to that the complainant is to be compensated with Rs.1,00,000/- and the cost incurred on him for the complainant. The opposite party accepted notice and filed written version. The opposite party contended that the complainant was a student admitted in the institute and the course for which admission sought was also the Secretarial Practice during the period 2001-2002. No assurance was given on the side of the opposite party to the complainant that the course had the approval of KGTE. The Secretarial Course conducted in the institution had no affiliation to KGTE and further the complainant was not told that the Secretarial Course had government recognition. The opposite party gave all the assistance to the complainant to appear for the examination of computer as per STED Project, Government of India. The complainant had also applied for other examination that were computer word processing, Accountancy, Business Organizations and Secretarial Practice and hall tickets were also issued to the complainant. The role of the opposite party to train student for examination was effectively done. The institute conducted by the opposite party is a reputed one which started its function from 1970. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is with the motivation to tarnish the reputation of the opposite party’s institute and complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing. Both parties are present. The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not according to the law and evidence and not legally substantiate. He pointed out that the lower Forum has not considered the fact that the appellant/opposite party has not given assurance to the complainant that the course had the approval of KGTE and had government affiliation. He contended that the appellant/opposite party did not inform the complainant anything regarding the government affiliation of the said course. But the lower forum failed to note that the secretarial course is not an affiliated one and no institutions have such affiliation and the training confined to prepare the candidate for writing secretarial examination.The actual fact that the complainant was not willing to joined for B.com course on 14.08.02. It is not considered by the Lower Forum. The complainant did not attented for all papers in the examination conducted by KGTE is not considered by the forum below and there is no deficiency contended by the appellant and the order passed by the Forum below is mightily be set aside. This commission heard in detail and perused from the case records. It is seening that the appellant is not legally empowered to grant diploma certificate to a student, that fact was already admitted by the appellant beyond on the cross examination. It is also seening that service offered on accepting fee is absolutely defective and illegal, apart from the person who is contacting the institution for coaching of different course at a time is to be failed on the method of examination and it was within time. Admitting a student for different courses and examination of the different courses to help at a time the student will not appear for the examination. It is quite impossible and impracticable. The complainant could not appear for the examination which were held on two different places on the same day. The opposite party was not inspected the time of examination and apart from that the aim of the student was not appropriate and considered by the opposite parties. The aspirant student who is admitted for the course must not be deprived of enjoying two offices improper. There is no doubt that he appellant who committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. We uphold the view taken by the forum below. In this present case it is not only the duty of the student only but also the duty of the appellant to protect and safeguard the students those who have approached them to study in various in their coaching institution. In this case the appellant has taken the educational coaching just like as a business. The value and the object of the education is different from trade and commerce. In the circumstances this commission is not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. It is passed strictly accordance with the law and evidence. This commission is modifying the result portion of the order of the forum below. The Forum below ordered to pay Rs.10,500/- to the complainant by the opposite party with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of 15.7.00 till the payment of the amount “is hereby confirmed and the portion to that the opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and other costs is hereby set aside. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part according to the above modification. Both parties directed to suffer their own respective costs. The points of the appeal answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Kb. | 
