BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 06/07/2009

Date of Order : 29/10/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 348/2009

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :

In 2008 February, the complainant joined CCSA & MCP computer course conducted by the opposite parties. Though the opposite parties offered to provide well trained faculties for teaching, it was not so. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 32,337/- to the opposite parties by way of fees. The course contains 5 modules and the complainant completed 2 modules. At that juncture, the complainant complained about the poor performance of the faculties, though the opposite parties assured to provide experienced faculties, they failed to do so. So, the complainant demanded refund of the fees. The opposite parties some how managed to complete the 3^rd module as well. Thereafter, the complainant opted to discontinue the course and requested the opposite parties to refund the fees. The complainant highlighted the very same grievance in his e-mail as well as in the lawyer notice but to no avail. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the fees together with compensation of Rs. One lakh for the loss of time and Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain and suffering. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite parties :

The complainant had initially joined for the CCNS course by paying a sum of Rs. 1,500/-. Subsequently, he joined CCSA and MCP course. The course duration was 3½ months. The complainant had completed 176 hours of classes out of a total of 345 hours. Thereafter, he was on leave due to chicken pox. The opposite parties have engaged faculties who are sufficiently qualified to handle the classes. The students who joined the course along with the complainant completed the course successfully and almost all of them got placement on the basis of the course. Since he did not complete the course, there was no scope for a placement in accordance with the course undertaken. The opposite parties have a clear system for refund of the fees. The complainant is in no way entitled to get refund of the fees according to the terms. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The complainant and the witness were examined as PW's 1 and 2. Exts. A1 to A16 were marked on the side of the complainant. Witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the fees.

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

5. Point No. i. :- The following issues are not disputed by the parties :

1. On 08-02-2008, the complainant joined CCNS (CMS Certified Network Specifications) course conducted by the opposite parties.

2. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 32,337/- towards fees evident from Exts. A1 to A7.

3. The complainant dropped CCNS course and joined in CCSA and MCP (CMS certified System Administration).

4. The complainant attended 3 modules out of the 5 modules.

5. According to the complainant, he left the course due to the sub-standard training rendered by the opposite parties while the opposite parties maintain that the complainant had intimated that he suffers from chicken pox.

6. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the fees, since the teaching faculty in the opposite parties are sub-standard and the opposite parties have no authority or approval to conduct the course. The learned counsel relied on the decisions rendered by the Higher Judiciary.

1. M.V.J. College of Engineering Vs. Tukaram Rao (2009) CJ 306 (NC).

2. Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh (2009) CJ 924 (NC).

3. Nipun Nagar Vs. Symblosis Institute of International Business (2009) CJ 410 (NC).

4. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Naresh Dubey (2010) CJ 245 (Delhi SCDRC).

5. Tata Tele Services Ltd. Vs. Sameer Nandwani and Another (2009) CJ 742 (Delhi SCDRC).

6. Shashi Vs. Surender Kumar (2010) CJ 67 (Chandi. SCDRC).

7. Tesol India Vs. Govind Singh Patwal (2011) CJ 1 (NC).

    

7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant had joined the course after executing Ext. A12/B1 Student Rules and Regulations Sheet and as per Ext. B1 the fee once paid is not refundable.

8. The opposite parties in their version categorically stated as follows :

“The opposite parties have a clear system for refund of the fee. As per the refund policy there are six situations in which the student is entitled to refund. For persons who have attended classes after payment or fee there is no provision for refund of fee. A student who has not attended even a single lecture can claim refund within 45 days from the date of registration. Health problems which force discontinuity of course also is a ground for claiming refund.”

9. Further, Ext. A16 is the student policy - refund policy of the opposite party in which it is stated that the fee is refundable on certain occasions. Even according to the opposite parties, the complainant had left the institution only for the reason that he was suffering from chicken pox for which he has to be exempted as per Rules, which reads as follows :

“CMS Institute Corporate office will consider part refund of the course fee.

Category 4 (Student's Disability/Health Problems): The student suffers from a physical disability or health related problem which is certified by a practicing Medical Doctor, forcing discontinuation of course for health reasons.”

10. During evidence, DW1 the witness for the opposite parties stated that the opposite parties have not obtained approval from the concerned Government or from any authority except firm the corporation which duly goes to show that they are not authorised legally to conduct such a course.

11. Considering the evidence in this case and Judicial pronouncements cited by the complainant, we are of the convinced and firm view that the opposite parties are liable to refund the fees to the complainant, for no reasons otherwise forthcoming.

12. Point No ii. :- Admittedly, the complainant has attended 3 modules of the course which goes to show that he has even against his claim acquired some knowledge from the course which is neither denied by the complainant himself nor contested by the opposite parties. So, the claim for compensation of Rs. one lakh cannot be allowed. This Forum has gone to consider prudently the grievances of the complainant having the primary grievance of the complainant unsustainable, the 2^nd one as well does not have to be considered for the same cause.

13. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall refund the fees collected from the complainant as per Exts. A1 to A7 together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of October 2011.

Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========