KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 245/2007 JUDGMENT DATED:24..03..2010. PRESENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.Dean, Student Service Department, ICFAI University, 52, Nagarjuna Hills, Punjagattu, Hyderabad. : APPELLANTS 2.Student Counsellor, ICFAI, 1st floor, Sreekrishna Towers, Above Karur Vysya Bank, Sultanper, Palakkad. (By Adv:M/s Swapna Mohan) Vs. Annie Mathew, “Nandavanam”, Kunnathurmedu, Opp.Town South Police Station, : RESPONDENT Palakkad-678 013. JUDGMENT SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC:95/06 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in conducting the course by name M.S (Finance) Programme. The complainant prayed to get the course fee of Rs.57,300/- refunded and also to get compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version before the Forum below contending that there was no deficiency of service on their part; that they could not conduct the training classes because of non availability of required number of students for training classes. Thus, the opposite parties requested for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A4 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and B1 prospectus on the part of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and evidence of the case, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:30th March 2007 directing the opposite parties to refund the course fee of Rs.57,300/- which was collected from the complainant with a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred. 3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted her arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeals. He argued for the position that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and that the respondent/complainant was served with all the study materials for successful completion of the MS Finance Programme. It is further submitted that the respondent/complainant left the course because of her own personal inconvenience and that the opposite parties are ready to refund the fee of Rs.9,000/- collected towards training classes fee. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in conducting the MS Finance Programme? 2. Whether the failure on the part of the opposite parties in conducting the training classes can be considered as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in conducting the MS Finance Programme? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated:30/3/2007 passed by the CDRF, Palakkad in CC:95/2006? 5. Point Nos:1 to 3:- There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant joined the MS Finance Programme (course) offered by the opposite parties and that the respondent/complainant paid a total of Rs.57,300/- towards the fee for the said MS Finance Programme. Admittedly the respondent/complainant discontinued the said course. According to the appellants, the respondent discontinued the course only because of her own inconvenience and that the respondent secured another prospective job. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant would contend that she was forced to discontinue the study under MS Finance Programme because of the failure on the part of the opposite parties in conducting training classes. There is no evidence forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties that the respondent/complainant discontinued the course under MS Finance Programme because of her own inconvenience. On the other hand, it is an admitted fact that the opposite parties failed to conduct training classes for the aforesaid MS Finance Programme. The aforesaid failure on the part of the opposite parties in conducting training courses would amount to deficiency of service. 6. The appellants/opposite parties categorically admitted the fact that they collected a sum of Rs.9,000/- from the respondent/complainant towards the fee for conducting training classes. Ext.B1 prospectus would make it abundantly clear that it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to conduct training classes for the students of MS Finance and that the purposes of conducting such training classes was to supplement the knowledge acquired through self study. It was also stipulated in Ext.B1 prospectus that training classes will be conducted four times a year at cities where the ICFAI has got branch office. Admittedly the 2nd opposite party, the student council ICFAI was functioning at Sultanpet in Palakkad District, where the complainant was residing. The appellants have got a case that they conducted training courses in the nearby cities of Ernakulam and Kottayam. But the appellants never informed the respondent/complainant by giving an opportunity to take part in the training classes held at Ernakulam or Kottayam. It is also to be noted that the appellants/opposite parties totally failed to inform the respondent/complainant being a student for MS Finance Programme to intimate about training classes. It is also to be noted that the respondent/complainant was very much interested in participating in the training classes and that is why she remitted the fee of Rs.9000/- for training classes. So, the failure on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in conducting the training classes would amount to deficiency of service. 7. Admittedly the complainant discontinued her studies under MS Finance Programme. According to the complainant she could not continue her studies under MS Finance Programme because of her inability to continue her studies without getting training classes which was offered by the opposite parties in their B1 prospectus for MS Finance Programme. It is to be noted that there are students who can continue studies without any training classes; but there may be students who are in dire need of such training classes. So, it was the bounden duty of the opposite parties, who offered such training classes, to conduct the same to supplement the knowledge acquired through self study. It is also to be noted that the training classes were offered to be conducted 4 times a year; but the opposite parties have not even conducted a single training class for the students like the complainant. It can be inferred that because of the failure on the part of the opposite parties to conduct training classes, the complainant could not continue her studies. Thus, the complainant wasted her time by joining the MS Finance Programme offered by the appellants/opposite parties. In such a situation the appellants/opposite parties had to refund the total fee collected by them from the complainant. Therefore, the Forum below has perfectly justified in directing the opposite parties to refund the course fee of Rs.57,300/- which was collected by the opposite parties from the complainant. The aforesaid order passed by the Forum below is to be confirmed. Hence we do so. 8. The Forum below has also awarded further compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Commission is of the view that further compensation of Rs.20,000/- ordered by the Forum below was unwarranted. It is to be noted that Ext.B1 prospectus would make it clear that the training classes were optional. Fortunately or unfortunately the complainant paid the fee of Rs.9000/- for training classes. It is the case of the opposite parties that they could not conduct training classes because of non availability of required number of students. But the opposite parties failed to adduce any evidence in support of their case that there no required number of students for training classes. It is further to be noted that in B1 prospectus itself it was specified that the training classes will be conducted subject to registration of a minimum number of students at its city. The complainant was also aware of this condition incorporated in B1 prospectus with respect to training classes. So, there was the possibility of not conducting training classes. In such situation it is not just or proper to fasten further liability on the opposite parties to pay compensation over and above the direction to refund the total course fee collected from the complainant. The Forum below is perfectly justified in awarding cost of Rs.500/-. It is not fair on the part of the complainant to request for refund of the donation of Rs.500/-. So, the order passed by the Forum below to refund the donation of Rs.500/- is deleted. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified to the extent as indicated above. The above points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed partly. The impugned order dated:30/3/2007 passed by the Forum below in CC:95/06 is modified and thereby the order passed by the Forum below directing payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- and refund of donation of Rs.500- is setaside. The order passed by the Forum below directing refund of Rs.57,300/- being the course fee with cost of Rs.500/- is upheld. The opposite parties are directed to pay/refund the course fee of Rs.57,300/- with cost of Rs.500/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment failing which this amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the impugned order (dated:30/3/2007) passed by the Forum below in CC:95/06 till payment. As far as the present appeal is concerned, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL. | 
