Complaint filed on: 18-04-2012

                                                      Disposed on: 06-12-2012

BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.823/2012

DATED THIS THE 6^th DECEMBER 2012

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SMT.NIVEDITHA.J, MEMBER

Complainant: -             

                                                Dr.Hareesh Kumar.R.S.

                                                Aged about 40 years,

                                                Residing at No.212,

                                                Chitramala Apartment,

                                                Jayanagar 1^st Block, East,

                                                Bangalore-11                                                                                    

V/s

Opposite parties: -       

1.     Dayananda Sagar School of Distance Education, Shavige Malleshwara Hills, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore-78

Reptd by its Director

2.     Sharada Vikas Trust,

No.450/1/14, 4^th floor,

Lakshmi complex, 10^th main, 27^th cross, 4^th block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-11,

Reptd by its Managing Trustee

3.     Karnataka State Open University,

Manasa Gangothri, Mysore,

Reptd by its Registrar  

ORDER

SMT.NIVEDITHA.J, MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act’1986, praying to pass an order, directing the OPs to pay Rs.8,650=00, and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000=00  as compensation.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

The complainant has completed his M.D. in the field of Forensic Medicine. The complainant is interested in further Higher studies relating to Health Insurance to become a Post Graduate in M.B.A. The 1^st opposite party is an Institution authorized by 3^rd opposite party for conducting distance education programs. The complainant got admission in the institutions belonging to 1^st opposite party by paying fees in the month of March/April-2012. The complainant made payment to the 1^st opposite party as under:

02-03-2010          Cash                              Rs.250=00

06-04-2010          D.D. of SBM                   Rs.3,800=00

06-04-2010         D.D. of SBM                   Rs.2,000=00

06-04-2010         D.D of SBM                    Rs.8,400=00

The 1^st opposite party has informed to the complainant that the 1^st semester examination in MBA will be commencing in the month of June, 2010 and study materials and papers relating to examination will be sent by May, 2010. Thereafter, the complainant had not received any study materials even after the schedule dates. Thereafter,   the complainant has received the study materials in the month of September/October, 2010. The complainant has called upon the 1^st opposite party and enquired about the same, but, the 1^st opposite party assured of early intimation by mail. On 28-12-2010, the complainant has received a letter  from the 1^st opposite party stating that, the distance education activities in the institution belonging to the 1^st opposite party have been terminated; the students who were already admitted to the 3^rd opposite party will be transferred to its partner institution at the opposite party No.2. On 14-01-2011, the complainant has received a letter from the 2^nd opposite party  stating that the Bank D.D with respect to the payment of University fees from the complainant have become invalid as the date of encashing them had elapsed. The 2^nd opposite party has returned D.D as under:-

06-04-2010          D.D. of SBM                   Rs.3,800=00

06-04-2010          D.D. of SBM                   Rs.2,000=00

The payment of Rs.250=00 and Rs.8,400=00 made to the opposite parties by the complainant are retained by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties have informed the complainant that they are planning to conduct the present semister examination by the end of February, 2011. On 03-12-2011, the complainant has issued legal notice to the opposite parties seeking refund of all the payments made to them. The opposite party No.2 and 3 have not made any response to the said notice. The 1^st opposite party has sent untenable reply on 27-12-2011. Hence, the present is complaint filed.

          3. After filing the complaint, notices were issued to the OPs no.1 to 3. The notice issued to OPs no.2 and 3 were returned as duly served, and the OPs no.2 and 3 were called out absent and placed them exparte, and the OP no.1 has appeared through his counsel and filed version contending interalia as under:

4. The 1^st opposite party has applied for the closure of Distance education and transfer of the same to 2^nd opposite party and it was approved by the Honorable Vice Chancellor of the University on 30-11-2010 and same was communicated to them by 3^rd opposite party through a letter No. KSOU DPA/AC/07/2010-11, dated 20-12-2010.  The 1^st opposite party transferred the existing student to 2^nd opposite party. The DDs that sent to the 3^rd  opposite party for further processings to enable the students to continue the course were sent back to them by the 3^rd opposite party for revalidation after the 3^rd  opposite party keeping these DDs with it, inexplicably, for a considerable period of time without processing the DDs. The 1^st opposite party has further sent back the DDs to students concerned and informed them to send the DDs back after revalidating. The opposite parties have sent the study materials to the students after duly completing the 3^rd opposite party’s admission processes. The delay in the dispatch of the study materials could be attributed to the 3^rd opposite party in completing the process. The 1^st opposite party transferred the students to 2^nd opposite party only after getting due permission from the 3^rd opposite party and students entirely fall with the 2^nd opposite party from the very day 3^rd opposite party transferred the students to 2^nd opposite party. 

5. The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence, and produced eight documents along with the complaint; one copy of prospectus-2010 of the OPs with memo dated 7-5-2012, and five original documents with memo dated 16-8-2012.  The 1^st OP did not file his affidavit by way evidence and documents. We have heard the arguments of the complainant’s counsel, and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant meticulously.

          6. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the 1^st OP, the following points arise for our consideration.

1.     Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2.     Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed in the complaint?

7. Our findings on the above points are:

Point no.1:    In the Affirmative

Point no.2:    As per the detailed order for the

                  following,

REASONS

8. Answer on the point no.1 and 2: A careful reading of the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant got admission for post graduation in M.B.A in the Distance education the institutions belonging to 1^st opposite party, after paying the prescribed fees in the month of March/April.2010. The following payments were made by the complainant as directed by the 1^st opposite party as under:

02-03-2010          Cash                              Rs.250=00

06-04-2010          D.D. of SBM                   Rs.3,800=00

06-04-2010         D.D. of SBM                   Rs.2,000=00

06-04-2010         D.D of SBM                    Rs.8,400=00

The 1^st opposite party has informed that the first semester examination in M.B.A will be commencing in the month of June, 2010 and study materials and paper relating to examination will be sent by May, 2010.  The complainant did not receive the study materials even after the schedule dates.  The study materials were received by the complainant in the month of September/October, 2010. No information was given to the complainant by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties regarding the delay in dispatch of study materials and the examination time table. Thereafter, on 28/12/2010 the complainant has received a letter from the 1^st opposite party stating that, the distance education activities in the institution belonging to the 1^st opposite party have been terminated; the students already admitted to the 3^rd  opposite party will be transferred to its partner institution at the opposite party No.2.  The complainant also received a letter dated 14/01/2011 along with 3 bank DDs from the 2^nd opposite party, stating that the Bank Demand draft with respect to the payment of University fees from the complainant have become invalid as the date of encashing of DD has been lapsed.

9. In the version the 1^st opposite party admitted that, students were sent to 2^nd opposite party only after getting due permission from the 3^rd opposite party. The DDs that sent to the 3^rd  opposite party for further processing to enable the students to continue the course were sent back to them by the 3^rd opposite party for revalidation after the 3^rd  opposite party keeping these DDs with it, inexplicably, for a considerable period of time without processing the DDs. The 1^st opposite party has further sent back the DDs to students concerned and informed them to send the DDs back after revalidating. 

10. The 1^st opposite party has received the full fees on behalf of 3^rd opposite party from the complainant in the month of April, 2010. The 1^st opposite party has not bothered to supply the study materials and inform about the examination to the complainant within the stipulated period. After the admission and receipt of full fees from the complainant, the 1^st opposite party has issued a letter stating inability to conduct the distance education, and transferring them to the institution of the 2^nd opposite party without giving information or taking consent from the students. The students were unaware about their transfer from one institution to another.  The complainant is also not aware about the 3^rd opposite party institution pertaining to the authorization for conducting Distance Education, and as a result of the said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant has lost one semester. The opposite party No.1 by transferring the course from their institution to 2^nd opposite party institution without consent/knowledge of the complainant shall not escape from the liability of giving service as promised by them or escape from the clutches of consumer protection act.  The allegations made by the complainant in the complaint were also unchallenged by OP No.2 & 3 as they have neither appeared before this forum nor denied the same.  The opposite parties has assured the complainant for giving coaching pertaining to the M.B.A Distance Course by taking certain consideration but instead of do so, they transferred the entire coaching class to another institution without taking consent of students or giving prior information to the complainant and this act of OPs shows the unfair trade practice of the opposite party.

11. On receiving huge money i.e., Rs.14,650/- from the complainant on the assurance imparting education, the opposite parties have failed to furnish the study materials and examination time table to the complainant and it tantamounts to deficiency in service.  In spite of several requests by the complainant the opposite party have neither cared to refund the money nor provided services as assured by them and this is nothing but an unfair trade practice.  Hence, we come to straight conclusion that, the complainant who knocks the door of forum seeking relief has proved his case with clear and tangible evidence, so we direct the OPs shall refund a sum of Rs.8,650=00 to the complainant jointly and severally alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of order to till the date of realization, and to pay Rs.2,000=00 towards        litigation expenses, and accordingly, we answer this point in a affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

(Vide separate order dated 06-12-2012)

The complaint is allowed in part.

          The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.8,650=00 (Rs.Eight thousand Six hundred fifty only) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of this order to till the date of realization.

The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 (Rs.Two thousand only) to the complainant as cost of this litigation.

 Supply fee copy of this order to both parties.

            Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 6^th day of December 2012.

MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT