THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31st of March 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.227/2010
(Admitted on 21.08.2010)
1. Ashalatha V.K,
Wo. Venugopala Kalluraya,
Aged about 32 years,
Maharanga House,
Ramakunja Post,
Puttur Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada.
2. Mamatha Kumari,
D/o. Seetharamaji,
Aged about 21 years,
R/A. Jain Compound,
N.G. Road, Attavara,
Mangalore.
3. Jaya K,
D/o. Late Somappa Rai,
Aged about 24 years,
R/A. Rotary Pura House,
Puttur, Dakshina Kannada.
4. Kamakshi K,
D/o. Late Somappa Rai,
Aged about 22 years,
R/A. Rotary Pura House,
Puttur, Dakshina Kannada.
5. Ravija,
D/o. Padmanabha Nayak,
Aged about 22 years,
R/A. Kananjar Jaddu House,
Kananjar Post,
Karkala Taluk.
6. Ashwini,
D/o. Venkappa Gowda,
Aged about 21 years,
R/A. Nethravathi House,
P.O. Dharmasthala,
Belthangady Taluk.
7. D.Bhanuprakash,
S/o. Late T.N. Dhruvakumar,
Aged about 35 years,
R/A. Pawan Pharma,
Opp: Reliance Web World,
Chickmagalur. …….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri.K.Mahabala Shetty).
VERSUS
1. ANTS Corporate Training Centre,
2nd Floor, R.D. Complex,
8th Main, 4th Block, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore 79.
Rep. by Ms.Indrani, Academic Head.
2. ADI STUDIO,
(Franchisee of ANTS Animation Training School),
4th Floor, G.H.S. Centenary Building,
G.H.S. Road, Hampankatta,
Mangalore -1.
Rep. by its Franchisee Sri.Diwakar. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Smt. Asha Nayak).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainants submitted that, the Opposite Parties are claimed to be the franchises of ANTS who also claimed that the students enrolling in their institution with 100% placement in lucrative jobs in the field animation. On believing the Opposite Parties, the Complainants joined the institution on varying dates and paid the fees.
It is stated that, the course conducted in the institution is unsatisfactory, as there was no proper training, the course session was dragged on endlessly and not have been served with completion certificate. It is stated that, of late the Complainants came to know that the Opposite Parties falsely claiming to be the franchisee of ANTS. It is further submitted that due to false representation of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants suffered mental agony, financial loss and future job prospects ruined because of their negligence, irresponsibility. It is further stated that, the Complainants have joined in the course in the year 2007 and each paid amounting to more than Rs.30,000/- as stated in the schedule of their complaint, since the very system of undertaking training course of the Opposite Parties are total failure, the Complainants requested the Opposite Parties to refund the amounts along with interest, the Opposite Parties did not respond. Subsequently, they issued a registered notice dated 26.11.2009 and the same has been served to the Opposite Parties despite of that they have not complied the demands made therein and hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay in all sum of Rs.2,13,000/- towards refund of fees to the Complainants along with interest at 18% p.a. from this date till payment and also claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation plus cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version denied the deficiency as alleged in the complaint. It is stated that, the 1st Opposite Party is a Limited Company in the name and style of ‘ANTS Studio Private Limited’ formed under the Companies Act 1956 having offices at Bangalore. The franchisor that is the 1st Opposite Party is engaged in the business of providing training and education in the field of animation and through authorized franchise centres. The vide agreement dated 23rd day of November 2006 the 2nd Opposite Party had obtained a franchise from the franchisor. It s further stated that, the 1st Opposite Party has supplied all the materials and expertise to the 2nd Opposite Party which the 2nd Opposite Party has duly put into use for the Complainants in furtherance of their contractual obligations. All the Complainants have been given their due certificates and also given them openings for jobs. It is stated that, the job opportunity depends upon how the students fair in the interviews and all the Complainants have given placement opportunities but they had failed in the interviews with prospective employer for which the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable as it depends upon the skill and violation of the Complainants. It is further submitted that, the Complainants given a criminal case which is registered as crime No.221/2009 before the Mangalore North Police for offences punishable under Section 420, I.P.C. and hence filing this complaint is resulted in double jeopardy and cannot be punished for the same offence twice. The course was conducted by the Opposite Parties is as per the contractual terms and conditions and there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Complainant No.1 to 6 (CW1 to CW6) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on them. Ex C1 to C74 were marked for the Complainants as listed in the annexure in detail. One Sri.Diwakara (RW1), Franchise holder of the Opposite Parties filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Both parties filed notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the present case, the facts which are admitted is that, the Complainant No.1 to 7 joined the ‘3D Maya Animation course’ for the total period of the course is for one year one month. It is also admitted that, the Complainant No.1 to 6 paid the fee more than Rs.30,000/-. But the Complainant No.7 paid Rs.5,000/- and admitted the receipt i.e., Ex C74 issued by the Opposite Parties.
Now the point in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, the Complainants came up with a complaint stating that, the Opposite Parties claiming to be Franchises of Animation Training School (herein after called ‘ANTS’) corporate, declared and promised the Complainants providing 100% job placement in the field of Animations. On believing the above representations, the Complainant joined the above Animation course in the year 2007 but they have failed in their duty and course has been dragged endlessly, they have not completed the course within reasonable time. It is further stated that, the Opposite Parties have collected the required fees from the respective Complainants for the completion of the course even though the Opposite Parties disputed the collection of fees and not issued the completion course certificate nor refunded the amount which amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint. In order to substantiate the above allegations, the Complainants have filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C74.
On the contrary, the Opposite Parties submitted that, Opposite Party No.2 is the franchise holder of the Opposite Party No.1 and all the study material and the money collected would be sent to Opposite Party No.1. It s further stated that, the certificate was not issued to the Complainants for two reasons, firstly they had not made the contracted payment in full and secondly they had not completed their course, i.e., they have not submitted the assignments in the form of short films which the Complainants have not given for which the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable. With regard to the job, the Opposite Parties stated that, the Complainants have been sent for job placements but giving placements depends entirely on their performance in their respective interviews and is not in the hands of the Opposite Parties. It is also stated that, there are 160 students studying in the institute, if there was a deficiency in service all the students should have filed a case, the Complainants have not completed their course nor adhered to their contractual obligation and filed the above complaint and stated that there is no deficiency. The Opposite Parties also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and answered the interrogatories.
Now the point for consideration is that, whether the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service? In order to substantiate the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties, the primary onus to prove the deficiency on the part of the Complainants. In the instant case, the Complainants produced the admission forms along with receipts i.e., Ex C4 to C74. But nowhere in the application or in the receipts the total fee claimed by the Opposite Parties not forthcoming. But on perusal of the interrogatories served by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 i.e., question No.16, wherein the Opposite Parties stated that the total fees of the course are Rs.36,000/- as contracted between the Complainants and the Opposite Parties. That has been admitted by the Complainants.
However, from the evidence of the parties, it is shown to us that the fees contracted between the Complainants and the Opposite Parties was of Rs.36,000/-. On perusal of the receipts issued by the Opposite Parties it revealed that the Complainant No.1 paid Rs.30,000/-, Complainant No.2 paid Rs.36,000/-, Complainant No.3 paid Rs.34,100/-, Complainant No.4 paid Rs.34,100/-, Complainant No.5 paid Rs.34,000/-, Complainant No.6 paid Rs.36,500/- on various dates and Complainant No.7 paid Rs.5,000/- on 22.07.2007 to the Opposite Parties. In the instant case, we have observed that, except producing the fee receipts and the application form, nothing has been placed on record to show what type of course opted by the Complainants and the duration of the course or atleast the booklet and brochure issued by the Opposite Parties should have been produced before this FORA. The Complainants categorically admitted that, they have been provided with booklets and brochure but the same has not been produced before this FORA.
In the instant case, the Complainants stated that, they have joined the 3D Maya Animation batch, the total period of course is for one year one month but the Opposite Parties not issued completion certificate nor they have given 100% job placement and stated that the Opposite Parties have made false representation. But the Opposite Parties stated that, the Complainants have not submitted the assignments in the form of short films i.e., Animated C.D a part of the curriculum, which is necessary to be submitted at the end of the course and hence they could not issue the completion certificate. The Complainants stated that, the Opposite Parties have not finished the entire course so they could not submit the Animated C.D. When that being the case, it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Parties to establish that they have completed the course despite of that the Complainants have not submitted the above animated C.D. However, it could be seen on record that, the Complainants in this case shown to us that they have made ¾ payment of the course fee to the Opposite Parties. But the Opposite Parties not produced any record to show that they have completed the course. Just because the Opposite Parties not paid the entire fee i.e., Rs.36,000/- at a time the Opposite Parties cannot withheld the course. The Opposite Parties cannot expect the students to pay the entire fees before commencement of the course which amounts to unfair trade practice. It is a settled position of rule that, no institutions forced to pay the entire fees for the whole duration at a time because the students will realize the deficiency of the institutions only entering into the institutions and taking their service. In the instant case, the Opposite Parties failed to produce any materials before this FORA to show that they have completed the 3D Maya Animation course to the Complainants and also they have failed to produce the records to prove that the Complainants have attended the interview but failed in securing jobs despite of giving interview. We noticed that, in one of the reply given by the Opposite Party No.2 stated that, at the moment all records pertaining to the same are with the head office and can be produced eventually. If at all, the Opposite Parties completed the course then definitely they should have produced the documents before this FORA. It is a settled law that, non-production of documents which is within the knowledge and possession of the parties, if not produced when a party bases its case upon a particular documents it is required to be proved particularly when specifically disputed by the other side. In the instant case, it is the definite case of the Complainants that the Opposite Parties have not completed the course. When that being the case, the Opposite Parties should have produced the documents to show that they have completed the course and also offered for 100% job placement. Except the bare oral statement, nothing has been produced till this date shows that the Opposite Parties have not completed the 3D Maya Animation course to the Complainants and they made a false representations with regard to 100% job placements in their advertisement to the general public. We further observed that, the Complainant No.2 i.e., Mamatha Kumari and Complainant No.6 i.e., Miss.Ashwini have paid the entire course fee and the Opposite Parties have issued the course certificate but there is no records produced by the Opposite Parties to show that they have provided job placements as assured by them in any of the institutions or employer. No doubt, the job opportunity depends upon how the students fair in the interviews. But the Opposite Parties should have produced the records to show that the Complainants have been given placement opportunities. Nothing has been placed on record shows that the Complainants have given opportunities to face the interviews. Any person bases his case on a particular contract or a document it must be established by leading cogent evidence and it cannot be deemed to have been established merely basing on oral statement. From the entire conspectus and documents placed on record we hold that the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 committed deficiency in rendering their service to the Complainants and also indulged in unfair trade practice. Under that circumstances, the Complainants are entitled for the entire refund of fees paid by them because the Opposite Parties not completed the course nor produced any documents to show that how many days they have conducted the course. Apart from that the Complainants also entitled for compensation for the inconvenience and harassment and cost of the proceedings.
In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the entire fees received by them from the Complainant No.1 to 7 along with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of the complaint till the date of payment and also pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
However, the interest as well as compensation both cannot be allowed. Interest is always inclusive of compensation and hence separate compensation not allowed in this case.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the entire fees received from the Complainant No.1 to 7 along with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment. And also pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.
(Page No.1 to 13 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of March 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 – Smt. Ashalatha V.K – Complainant No.1.
CW2 – Miss. Mamatha Kumari – Complainant No.2.
CW3 – Miss. Jaya K – Complainant No.3.
CW4 – Miss.Kamakshi K – Complainant No.4.
CW5 – Miss.Ravija – Complainant No.5.
CW6 – Miss.Ashwini – Complainant No.6.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainants:
Ex C1 – 26.11.2009: Copy of the Lawyer’s notice issued on behalf of the Complainants to the Opposite Parties.
Ex C2 & C3 – 30.11.2009: Postal acknowledgement signed by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2.
Ex C4 to C10 – 27.08.2007, 15.05.2007, 24.07.2007, 24.07.2008, 10.09.2007, 30.05.2007, 22.07.2007: Admission form of the Complainants (i.e., 7 in numbers).
Ex C11 & C12 – Receipt issued to Ashalatha V.K. for Rs.30,000/- (2 in numbers) on different dates.
Ex C13 to C25 – Receipt issued to Mamatha Kumari A for Rs.36,000/- (13 in numbers) on different dates.
Ex C26 to C37 – Receipt issued to Jaya K for Rs.34,100/- (12 in numbers) on different dates.
Ex C38 to C49 – Receipt issued to Kamakshi for Rs.34,100/- (12 in numbers) on different dates.
Ex C50 to C61 – receipt issued to Ravija for Rs.34,000/- (12 in numbers) on different dates.
Ex C62 to C73 – Receipt issued to Ashwini for Rs.36,500/- (12 in numbers) on different dates.
Ex C74 – 22.07.2007:Receipt issued to Banuprakash for Rs.5,000/-.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Sri.Diwakar – Franchise holder of M/s.ANTS Corporate Training Centre i.e., Opposite Parties.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Dated:31.03.2011 PRESIDENT
