KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No.425/09
JUDGMENT DATED: 27.08.2010
PRESENT:-
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANTS
1. Mahatma Gandhi University,
Priyadarshini Hills P.O.,
Kottayam, Represented by its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi University,
Priyadarshini Hills P.O., Kottayam.
3. Mahatma Gandhi University School of Distance Education,
Priyadarshini Hills,P.O.,Kottayam,
Represented by its Director, Dr. Baby Thomas
(Rep. Adv. Sri. A. Abdul Kharim and Narayan R.)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. Arsha Thomas,
Edukkutharayil House,
Sreekantamangalam P.O.,
Athimpara, Kottayam
2. The Co-ordinator,
M. Phil Clinical Psychology Programme,
Department of Clinical Psychology,
Mental Health Centre, Peroorkada,
Trivandrum – 695 005
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. S. Reghukumar)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated 30.5.2009 in C.C. 75/08 of CDRF, Kottayam is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties 1 to 3 who are jointly and severally under directions to refund the sum of Rs. 30,500/- which is remitted by the petitioner towards fees and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum below.
The case of the complainant before the forum bereft of unnecessary details is that on the basis of an advertisement dated 16.6.2006 of the 3rd opposite party in the Mathrubhumi daily, the complainant applied for admission to Clinical Psychology Section for the year 2006-08 conducted by the 3rd opposite party. The complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 30,000/ as tuition fees for the first semester and a sum of Rs. 500 towards registration fees. It is her further case that though the classes started on 11.9.2006 the clinical practice was freezed from 27.12.2006 and thereafter no classes were conducted at the Medical Health Center and also that from 26.3.2007, no academic program was held by the opposite parties and the course was subsequently stopped. The complainant came to know that the opposite parties had no recognition for the programme from rehabilitation council of India and that the opposite parties could not issue valid certificate for M.PhiI course for the year 2006-08. submitting that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service by conducting course without proper recognition, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay the compensation to the amount of Rs. 1,20,500/- with interest and costs.
The opposite parties entered appearance and in the version filed by them, It was contented that the complaint was not maintainable and that the University Syndicate held on 18.7.2005 resolved to conduct M.Phil degree course in Psychology and the government had agreed to start the course at Mental Health Center and also that the facilities available at MHC could be utilized to start the course. According to the opposite parties no prior approval from government was necessary for conducting Mphil (Clinical Psychology) and it was only the approval of RCI that was necessary and that the normal procedure was to obtain the approval of RCI within 2 years during the course. It was also submitted that they had taken necessary steps for obtaining the approval of RCI and that there was no deficiency of service on their part.
We heard both sides.
The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had passed the impugned order without appreciation of the actual facts and circumstances of the case. It is his very case that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum and that the Forum had to find that the Government of Kerala was a necessary party in the dispute and without the juncture of the Kerala State Government the complaint was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is also argued by him that the appellants had taken sincere steps to re-continue the course through TMA Institute of Counselling, Kottayam as an interim measure which was discontinued only because of the filing of a petition by another student of the institute for continuation of the course in mental Health Care, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned counsel vehemently argued before us that the complainant/respondent was given all the materials as per the Syllabus and that obstruction of the course was caused due to invalid reasons. He has also disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Forum below submitting that the amount is very much on the higher side and the amount is allowed without any basis. A copy of the order in W.P ( c )13368/08 dated 1.4.2009 and a copy of the letter number 33815/E1/2006/H & FWD Dt. 28.8.2006 of the Government of Kerala are produced by the learned counsel for our appreciation.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He has also submitted before us that the contention of the appellants that the Kerala Government ought to have been a party cannot be sustained, due to the reason that it was the 3rd opposite party, University , which had given the advertisement and itwas as per that advertisement that the complainant had applied for the course. He has vehemently argued that there was clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in starting a course without proper sanction from the Government and also from the RCI. It is his further case that the complainant had lost one year in her carrier due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties apart that from the expenses incurred by her for her education. The learned counsel submitted before us that the appellants were canvassing untenable contentions and that the MOU etc. are factors, extraneous as far as the complainant is concerned. He has also relied on the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in Buddhist Mission Dental Collage and Hospital Vs Bhupesh Khurana and others (2009CTJ 373 (Supreme Court)(CP) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ” imparting of education by an educational institute for consideration falls within the ambit of service and the students of the institute are the consumers of the service and also that the student are entitled to compensation if the institutions are indulged in unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Thus he canvassed for the position that the order of the Forum below is only to be upheld and the appeal dismissed.
On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the Ist respondent/complainants and also perusing the records , we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant was admitted for the MPhil course in Psycology and that the course had to be stopped abruptly. It is also admitted that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 30,500/- towards fees and registration The opposite parties/appellants would argue that the syndicate ) held on 18.7.2005 resolved to conduct the Mphil course and the government had agreed for starting the course in Mental Health Center Thiruvananthapuram. He has also invited out attention to the letter to The Director, School of Distant Education Mahatma Gandhi University from the Secretary to Government stating that the government had approved in principle to the proposal to use the facilities available in the mental health center Thiruvananthapuram. for the conduct of Mphil(Psychology) in Distant Education of Mahatma Gandhi University. Though such a letter is produced and though the judgment in writ petition 13360/2008 are produced in the appellants stage, we find no evidence from the side of the appellants that the course was started after obtaining recognition from the R.C.I. Though the appellants had further submitted that they had taken steps for approval, nothing is produced either before the Forum or before this Commission to show the genuineness of such an argument.
As the Forum below has rightly observed , anywhere in Ext. A1 it is not mentioned that the course was conducted subject to the approval of RCI. Thus It can be seen that the opposite parties /appellants had started the course without proper recognition and also without proper sanction from the government. Though in the letter dated. 28.8.2006 of the Secretary to Government informing that the government approved in principle for the proposal of using the facilities available in the Medical Health Center, Thiruvananthapuram, It is noted that no effective steps were taken by the appellants to get the sanction from the Mental Health Center, Thiruvananthapuram that the facilities could not be extended for the course conducted by the appellants. On a perusal of the general guide lines for starting a rehabilitation professional course it is found that the proposals in the prescribed format containing informations and details are to be submitted to the council on or before 31 st December of the current year we do not find any evidence to show that the opposite parties had taken effective steps within the period prescribed by the RCI. As a whole we find that the Forum below was just and correct in coming to the finding that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
The Forum below had directed the opposite parties to refund the tuition fee and registration fee remitted by the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstance of the case we find that the directions to refund the amount of Rs. 30,500/- and payment of compensation of Rs, 50,000/- are not at all on the higher side in the special circumstances that the complainant might have incurred expenditure for food and accommodation and also that she had to be compensated for the mental agony and sufferings caused to her due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. Thereby the appellants/opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to effect the payments as ordered by the Forum below within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the total amount of Rs. 80,500/- shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal there is no order as to costs.
.
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
