Date of Filing:15.02.2008<br /> Date of Order:29.12.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 434 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Ms. Shilpa.N,<br /> D/o Mr. P. Nagaiah,<br /> R/at No. 84, Basavasamithi Layout,<br /> Thindlu Road, Vidyaranyapura,<br /> Bangalore 97. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. CADD Center Training Services,<br /> No. 12, I Floor, III Cross, Sampige Road.<br /> Malleswaram, <br /> Bangalore 03<br /> Represented by its General Manager,<br /> Mr. P.S. Reddy.<br /> <br /> 2. CADD Center,<br /> Corporate Office,<br /> No. 5, Sir P.S. Sivaswami Salai,<br /> Mylapore, <br /> Chennai-600 004,<br /> Represented by its General Manager.<br /> <br /> 3. P.S. Reddy,<br /> General Manager,<br /> CADD Center Training Services<br /> No. 12, I Floor, III Cross, <br /> Sampige Road, <br /> Malleswaram, Bangalore-03<br /> <br /> 4. Mrs. Tanuja,<br /> Faculty, CADD Center Training Services,<br /> No. 12, I Floor, III Cross, <br /> Sampige Road,Malleswaram, <br /> Bangalore-03. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 34,900/- with cost and compensation. <br /> The brief facts of the case are that the complainant enrolled with CADD Center Training Services to pursue Master Diploma Programmed in Interior Architecture & Design (MDP-IAD) by remitting total fee of Rs. 34,900/- in four installments on different dates. The receipts are produced at Annexure-A to D. The course curriculum consisted of 2 modules, all of which had to be completed within 30th September 2007. At the time of enrolling, the first opposite party assured that the course will be completed within the stipulated time i.e., by 30th September 2007 and the classes will be conducted by the lectures with adequate skill and competency. Opposite party No.1 promised to provide all stationary and drawing instruments required for the entire course immediately after admission. The opposite party No.1 did not complete the course within the stipulated time and did not provide stationary and drawing instruments as promised. The teaching was substandard and the faculties were abusive towards the students. Due to which the complainant spent more than Rs.5,000/- towards stationary and drawing instruments. The software provided to her on ‘CADian ARCH2004B’ as a part of course material was a pirated version, which does not work properly. On many occasions opposite party No.4 made the complainant to come to the institute stating that she would conduct class or tests and sent her back without conducting any tests or classes and without giving any explanations. The complainant along with her father requested that the remaining portion in IAD Module I and II be completed, the General Manager of the opposite party No.1 refused to do so. Further when complainant requested to complete the softwares 3ds Max (clarification) Photoshop, MS project (PPM), the General Manager of opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that he will look into it. When the complainant completed the project module 2, 4th opposite party refused to accept the project stating that the same was on a CD, and demanded the same to be plotted on hand made sheets. The complainant along with her father met with the opposite parties, the opposite parties continued their same old attitude and conduct with the complainant. The opposite parties have miserably failed to stand by their advertisements, representations and promises made to the complainant. The complainant had won a number of trophies and certificates in the fest “Panche 2006” held at RLS School of Design, all of which have not been given to her but has been kept in the class locker. Hence, the complainant. <br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties put in their appearance through Advocate. Opposite parties No.1, 3 and 4 have filed defence version stating that the complainant had enrolled with CADD Center Training Services, to pursue a Master Diploma Programmed in Interior Architecture & Design (MDP-IAD) are true. The complainant had paid total fee of Rs.34,900/- in four installments. It is true that the curriculum consisted of 2 modules and all the portions had to be completed within 30th September 2007. At the time of enrolling assured that the course will be completed within the stipulated time i.e., 30th September 2007 is accepted to be true. It is denied that the opposite party No.1 promised to provide all stationary and drawing instruments required for the entire course immediately after admission. It is denied that the complainant was made to spend more than Rs.5,000/- towards purchase of books, sheets, photographs and other stationery and drawing instruments. The software provided to the complainant on ‘CADian ARCH2004B’ as a part of course material was a pirated version, which does not work properly is denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. When the complainant met the General Manager of the opposite party No.1 on 18.9.2007 along with her father with a request that the remaining portions in IAD Module I and II be completed, the General Manager of the opposite party No.1 refused to do so are false and baseless. Further when complainant requested to complete the softwares 3ds Max (clarification) Photoshop, MS project (PPM), the General Manager of opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that he will look into it is denied as false. When the complainant completed the project module 2, 4th opposite party refused to accept the project stating that the same was on a CD, and demanded the same to be plotted on hand made sheets is denied as false. The opposite party in fact has sent out letters to the complainant informing her of the PPM classes. It is denied that the opposite parties have failed to stand by their advertisements, representations and promises. It is denied that the opposite parties have not completed the portions within the schedule date thereby wasting precious time of the complainant. It is denied that the complainant had won a number of trophies and certificates in the fest “Panche 2006” held at RLS School of Design, all of which have not been given to her. It is known fact that a rolling trophy is usually presented on behalf of the institution and only the rolling trophy is available with the opposite party. The opposite parties are not responsible for not completing the course, as the opposite parties have called upon the complainant several times to complete the course and it is the complainant who has not come forward to complete the course and this complaint is filed to harass the opposite parties. In view of all these reasons stated above, the opposite parties have prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Both the parties filed affidavit evidence. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. During the course of hearing of the matter we tried to settle the matter amicably and asked the opposite parties for refund of the part of the fee amount to the complainant as a good gesture and to maintain good relationship. We also suggested instead of fighting litigation and passing orders on merits it is better that the opposite party institution should refund part of the fee amount to the student since she has not completed the course. To this suggestion the opposite party has come forward to refund Rs.10,000/- out of Rs.34,900/- received from the complainant. The learned Advocate for the opposite parties submitted that as a matter of good gesture and to avoid any future litigation and to maintain good relationship with the students the opposite parties have come forward to accept the suggestions of the Forum and ready and willing to refund Rs.10,000/-. The complainant was asked about her opinion. She insisted for refund of entire amount of fee paid by her though not compensation claimed in the complaint. The complainant was not ready to accept Rs.10,000/- by way of settlement. Therefore, the matter was heard and in this way we have taken up the case for decision. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party did not complete the course within the stipulated date i.e., 30th September-2007 and did not provide stationary and drawing instruments as promised and teaching in the institution was sub-standard. The teaching faculties were abusive towards the students. The promise of first opposite party turned out to be false promise and it was made only to lure students to enroll themselves for the course. At the commencement of the batch there were only 5 students in the batch and the complainant was the only student in her batch and continued to attend the course and lectures. Her batch mates discontinued the course due to sub-standard teaching and facilities. It is also the case of the complainant that opposite parties did not complete the portions in the syllabus. The complainant states that she was totally mislead by the advertisement and the promises made by the opposite parties. Based on the advertisement and promises she enrolled herself to the course. But the opposite parties failed to standby their advertisement, representation and promises. Therefore, it is the case of the complainant that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice demanding refund of fee of Rs.34,900/- and Rs.5,000/- towards the expenses incurred by the complainant towards books, stationary, drawing instruments etc., and she has also claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of precious time of 1 ½ years and for mental agony, harassment and trauma undergone by her owing to the mismanagement and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Training was not given as per required standard by the Educational Institution amounts to deficiency in service. It is obligatory and duty on the part of the opposite parties to provide requisite facility to the students for the course offered. The opposite parties should perform and render services to the students as per the attractive advertisement and brochure issued by them. Failure on the part of the opposite parties in rendering proper service as per the brochure and advertisement amounts to deficiency in service. The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in INNOVATORS INFOTECH LIMITED V/S POONAM SACHDEVA & ANOTHER reported in II 2004 CPJ 200 has held as under:-<br /> INNOVATORS INFOTECH LIMITED<br /> -Appellant<br /> POONAM SACHDEVA & ANR<br /> -Respondent<br /> Appeal Nos.A-1032 to A-1040 – Decided on 3.9.2003.<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Educational Services – Diploma course – 100% placement assured – Failure to fulfill obligations and assurances – Training or required standard not provided – Deficiency in service provided – Refund of fees with compensation and cost awarded – Order upheld in appeal. <br /> Again the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Commission in MANAGER, ‘STUDY CIRCLE’ CAREER DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE V/S SAYYAD JUAMIR USMAN & ORS reported in III 2003 CPJ 584 has held as under:-<br /> MANAGER, ‘STUDY CIRCLE’ CAREER DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE -Appellant <br /> V/S<br /> SAYYAD JUAMIR USMAN & ORS.<br /> -Respondents<br /> Appeal Nos.632 to 635 of 2003 – Decided on 13.6.2003.<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Educational Services – Students admitted in institution for computer training – Fees paid – Obligatory upon OPs to provide requisite facility to students for the course and to appear for examination – Failure on part of OPs in rendering services – Deficiency in service proved – Refund of fees directed – Compensation granted. <br /> 5. Therefore by considering the above authorities as a good and binding guidelines in this case also, it is an admitted case that the complainant has been admitted to the opposite parties institution for which she has paid fee and therefore it was obligatory on the part of the opposite party to provide requisite facilities and required standard education to the students for the course. Failure on the part of the opposite parties to provide standard education and all the facilities as per the advertisement and brochure amounts to deficiency in service and refund of fee will be the consequential result. In this case the complainant who had enrolled for Master Diploma in Interior Architecture and Designs and she has remitted fee of Rs.34,900/- to the first opposite party for complete course. The curriculum consisted of 2 modules. First module consisted of 9 Chapters and second module consisted of 6 Chapters along with software. It is also admitted fact that all the portions had to be completed within 30th September-2007. The complainant having undergone training and course and the course was not completed. The complainant has completed major portion of the course and however she was not able to complete the course due to so many problems and facts stated by her. Therefore, it would be just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.20,000/- out of Rs.34,900/-. The refund of Rs.20,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Direction to the opposite parties to refund the entire fee collected from the complainant will not be proper and justified because the complainant had attended the classes and she has taken course from the opposite parties institution for that the opposite parties have spent amount towards maintenance, salary etc.,. Therefore, it would work hardship and injustice to the opposite parties if they are ordered to pay the entire fee collected from the complainant. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just, fair and proper to order the opposite parties to refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. The complainant has prayed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case to grant compensation to the complainant. There is absolutely no basis or any evidence to claim Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. Therefore, the request of the complainant for grant of compensation is not acceptable. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The Complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the said amount carries interest at 12% p.a from the date of this order till payment/realization.<br /> 7. The complainant is entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the present proceedings from opposite parties.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as a statutory requirement. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> Rhr., <br />