By. Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
These are the complaints filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. All these cases are connected. So, joint trial was allowed in C.C 236/2017. Since facts of all these three cases are similar, for the sake of
-2-
convenience, I have to narrate the cases of complainants together in brief as follows:
The Complainants are Civil Engineers. They joined for DBA (Diploma in Building Animation) course on 18.02.2017, 26.06.2017 and 01.08.2016 respectively in a training center namely “Delta Computer Education” which is run by Opposite Party. The Opposite Party told that there are qualified teachers and that the course is approved by C-APT and on completion of course, certificates shall be issued by C-APT. She also told that C-APT decided Rs.18,000/- as fees for the course. Therefore, the Complainants have given Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8,000/- and Rs.11,500/- respectively to the Opposite Party as part payment towards the fees. Thereafter, Complainants went to the institution for some months for the purpose of attending the class and noted their presence in the attendance register. But, for want of staff, there were no regular classes. The Opposite Party forced them to take classes to students joined for other courses. When they contacted the Opposite Party, she agreed to appoint teachers for the course and agreed to complete the course within the period prescribed. But, she has not arranged teachers. Thereby, the Opposite Party cheated them. Even though, they demanded to give back the fees, the Opposite Party threatened them and
-3-
misbehaved. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on Opposite Party. So Complainants sent lawyer notices to Opposite Party. But, she has not sent any reply even after the receipt of notices. Hence these complaints to get back advanced fees given with 12% interest per annum and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for each Complainants.
3. The Opposite Party filed her versions separately in each case. Since, she took same contention in all the cases, for the sake of convenience, I have to narrate her case in brief as follows:-
She admitted that the complainants joined for DBA course which is approved by C-APT. But, she denied that she agreed to give the certificates given by C-APT. She explained that if the Complainants write the examination, C-APT will be send certificates to them directly. She denied that C-APT decided Rs.18,000/- as fees for the course. It is the fees fixed by Opposite party. She admitted that Complainants joined for the course. The complainant in C.C 235/2017 attended classes for 348 hours within 101 days. The complainant in C.C 236/2017 attended classes for 129 hours within 36 days. The complainant in
-4-
C.C 241/2017 attended classes for 402 hours within 114 days. The duration of the course was 6 months. Thus, the Complainants have not attended the classes for the prescribed duration and they have not appeared for the examination. The other students who attended the classes appeared for the examination and obtained first class with distinction. The Opposite Party has an experience for more than 10 years in conducting all these classes at Sulthan Bathery and kalpetta. Pranav. N. B, Shamna. K. M, Nusaiba. K, Sabna. M. S, Raji Ratheesh and Opposite Party have taken classes to the Complainants. The Complainants discontinued the course without giving any information to the Opposite Party. So, they have not appeared for the examination. She denied that she compelled the Complainants to take classes to others. She denied that the Complainants requested her to complete the course after appointing experienced teachers. Since, the Complainants failed to continue the course and also failed to write the examination, the Opposite Party is not liable to pay anything to them. This Opposite Party had entrusted her Advocate to send replay notice. But, she came to know that his Advocate has not sent the reply only when she contacted him on receipt of notice from the Forum. Hence these complaints are liable to be dismissed.
-5-
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on Opposite
Party. If so, whether the Complainants are entitled to get anything
as claimed?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, Ext.A1, Ext.B1 to Ext.B3 and Ext.X1. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that Complainants have joined for DBA course which was being conducted by Opposite Party in her institution. It is also an admitted fact that they started to attend the course by paying advance as part payment towards the fees. They alleged that since there were no experienced teachers, they forced to discontinue the course after informing the Opposite Party. Therefore they want to get back the fees given with compensation. On the other hand, Opposite Party denied that there is deficiency in her service for the discontinuation of the course by the complainants. She has also denied that for want of experienced teachers, the Complainants forced to stop the course. According to her, the Complainants failed to attend the class and they
-6-
discontinued the course and not appeared for the examination. Thus, according to her, Complaints are not entitled to get refund of the fees given with compensation.
7. The Complainant in CC No.236/2017 is examined as PW1. She has given evidence for and on behalf of herself and for other complainants. The Opposite Party has given evidence as OPW1. The case of the Complainants is that they discontinued the course for want of experience teachers and so, they are entitled to get back the fees given with compensation. But, the Opposite Party affirmed that the Complainants discontinued the course without any information and failed to write the examination. It is an admitted fact that the duration of the course was six months and the complainants had to attend the whole classes to appear for the examination. Admittedly, the complainants have not attended the classes as stipulated and therefore they have not entitled to appear for the examination. It is to be noted that without getting full attendance, one cannot write the examination for any course. As I already stated, it is evident that the Complainants have not attended the classes for DBA course as stipulated. Therefore definitely, they are not entitled to write the examination for getting
-7-
pass certificate. Ext.A1 is the copy of the notice sent by the complainant to opposite party. Ext.X1 is the prospectus of the course. As per Ext.X1, the duration of DBA course is 6 months and Complainants had to attend 300 hours classes for completing the DBA course. Ext.B1 is the attendance register kept in the institute of the opposite party. Ext.B2 series are the copy of the Certificates obtained by other students who have completed and passed DBA course. The counsel for the Opposite Party argued that if there were no experienced teachers, how other students have successfully completed the course, appeared for the examination and obtained pass certificates. Ext.B2 series are the copy of the certificates of one Jinu Geroge, Sreelaya Prasad and Eldho Kurian. The counsel for Complainants submitted that all these students have joined for the course prior to the joining of the complainants. OPW1 deposed that Jinu George has joined for the course on 03.09.2017, Sreelaya Prasad has joined for the course on 18.08.2017 and Eldho kuriakose has joined for the course on 31.10.2016. There is no challenge from the Complainants on this aspect. It is to be noted that the complainants have joined for the course on 18.02.2017, 26.06.2017 and 01.08.2016 respectively. Therefore it is to be noted that Jinu Geroge and Sreelaya have jointed for the course after the joining of the Complainants for the course
-8-
and Eldho kuriakose has joined for the course after joining the Complainant in C.C 241/2017. If there were no experienced staff in the institute of Opposite Party, how these students could completed the course, appeared for the examination and passed. They passed in first class with distinction. OPW1 deposed that they have attended the whole classes. The Complainants have no case that all those students have also not attended the course for want of experienced teachers. Therefore it is evident that the Complainants discontinued the course for a reason known to them. So, we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the opposite party. No one can get any pass certificate without attending the class as stipulated and without writing the examination. So Complainants are not entitled to get anything from the Opposite Party as requested. Thus the Point is found against the complainants.
8. Point No.2:- Since, I found point No.1 against the complainants, the complainants are not entitled to get any relief.
In the result C.C. No.235/2017, C.C. No.236/2017 and C.C. No.241/2017 are dismissed without costs.
-9-
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of February 2020.
Date of Filing: 09.11.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Veenalal. N. J. B.E Civil Engineer.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Beena Thomas. Principal of Delta Computer
Education.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:17.08.2017.
X1. Prospectus.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
B1. Copy of Attendance Register.
B2(a). Copy of Certificate of Jinu George.
-10-
B2(b). Copy of Certificate of Sreelaya Prasad.
B2(c ). Copy of Certificate of Eldho Kuriakose.
B3. Attendance Register.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRF, WAYANAD.
