Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This order, shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals- bearing Nos.166 of 2009 titled as Coordinator, Apex Internal College & another Vs Sh.Devinder Singh Jamwal & another,193 of 2009 titled as Periyar Institute of Distance Education Vs Sh.Devinder Singh Jamwal, arising out of the common order dated 24.2.2009 , rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh(hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the Complaint and directed OP NOs.1 & 2 to refund the amounts of Rs. 130+Rs.748 and pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant while OP No.3 was directed to refund Rs.1942/- and pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation. It was also directed that the aforesaid amounts alongwith costs of litigation of Rs.5000/- (to be shared in the same ratio) shall be paid by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, they were directed to pay the amounts, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 28.7.2008 till actual realization. 2. The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement (annexure C1) was published by OP No.1. Being attracted by the same, and with a view to obtain Masters Degree in English, for his promotion, in the Department, the Complainant (now respondent No.1) approached OP No.1(now appellant) on 27.8.2007, for getting admission in M.A. (English) for the academic session 2007-08. He was supplied the Prospectus by OP No.2 (now appellant) after receiving Rs.130/- vide Receipt Annexure C-2. OP No.2 gave assurance, on behalf of OP No.1, that all the study materials/notes of M.A. (English) would be provided to the Complainant, by OP Nos. 1 & 2, free of cost, within a period of two months, and Personal Contact Programme (PCP) would be conducted at Chandigarh, on every Sunday. Acting on the assurances so given, the Complainant took admission in M.A. (English) on 30.8.2007 and submitted an application form duly filled in alongwith the bank drafts amounting to Rs.1942/- in favour of the Director PRIDE, payable at Salem, and Rs.748/- in favour of the Coordinator, Apex Education Group/College, payable at Chandigarh, copies whereof are Annexure C-4 to C-7. It was stated that no study material was supplied to the complainant, as assured and promised. Even the Personal Contact Programme classes were not conducted, for which, the complainant approached OP Nos.1 & 2 a number of times, but to no avail. It was further stated that the complainant waited for a period of one year and, thereafter, requested OP Nos. 1 & 2 to refund his money, but his request was not considered. It was further stated that the OPs were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, he filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) 3. OP Nos.1 & 2, in their reply, pleaded that the Complainant had suppressed material facts regarding intimation for the supply of study materials received from the PRIDE and commencement of PCP classes, sent by the answering OPs, vide Courier Receipt dated 21.7.2008. It was stated that the complainant intentionally and deliberately did not come to collect the study materials. It was further stated that he did not attend the PCP classes commencing from 26.7.2008 to 24.8.2008, on every week end. It was further stated that the examinations for all the courses, under Distance Education Stream, were held from 25.8.2008 till 14.9.2008, but he did not appear in the same. It was further stated that the OPs despatched the study material at the correspondence address of the Complainant, but he did not accept the same. It was further stated that various letters dated 21.7.2008, 8.8.2008, 14.8.2008 and 21.8.2008 Annexures R-1 to R-5 were written to the complainant. It was further stated that the OPs vide various letters intimated PRIDE to supply the study materials for various courses and the same were received by them from OP No.3 on 12.7.2008 and were supplied to the students without any delay. It was further stated that the last date for the admission of course was 31.12.2007. It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. OP No.3, in its reply, admitted that an amount of Rs.1942/- was received by it through OP No.2. It was stated that the remaining dues were not paid by the Complainant, for completing the course. It was further stated that the Complainant was admitted in the University on 4.12.2007 and the study materials were despatched by them to the Study Centres on 11.12.2007, 26.12.200 and 4.7.2008. It was further stated that the PCP classes were to be conducted, by the Study Centres, and as far as the complainant was concerned, he paid only one installment of fee, detailed above. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint , in the manner, detailed in the opening para of this order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid two appeals, were filed by the Appellants/OPs. 8. Today, both the appeals were fixed for arguments, but none appeared on behalf of the appellants in appeal No.166 and for respondents No.2 & 3 in appeal No.193. Even on 11.2.2011, none appeared on behalf of the appellants in appeal No.166. The appeal related to the year 2009. Under these circumstances, we came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground, for further adjournment. Accordingly, we were of the considered opinion, that the appeals be decided on merits, after hearing the Counsel for the respondents in appeal No.166 and the Counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1 in appeal No.193, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case. 9. We have heard the Counsel for the respondents in appeal No.166 of 2009 and the Counsel for the appellant, as well as respondent NO.1, in appeal No.193 of 2009, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellant, in Appeal NO.193 of 2009, submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate the documentary evidence produced, on record, by the appellant which showed that the study materials were despatched by the appellant to the study centres on 11.12.2007, 26.12.2007 and 4.7.2008. He further submitted that even the PCP classes were to be conducted by the respective study centres. He further submitted that the letters dated 11.12.2007, 26.12.2007 and 4.7.2008 were produced on record, but the same were not taken into consideration, by the District Forum. He further submitted that since the study material was supplied by the appellant Periyar Institute of Distance Education(PRIDE) in time, there was neither any deficiency, in service on its part, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, the District Forum, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the study material was not provided in time and the PCP classes were not held. He further submitted that the District Forum was also right, in coming to the conclusion, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, that the appellants in both the appeals, were deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 12. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum that attracted by the advertisement annexure C-1, issued by appellants in Appeal NO.166 of 2009, the complainant/respondent NO.1 took admission by submitting the Admission Form C-4 on 29.8.2007 in M.A. (English) classes run by the OPs. It is also not disputed that on 29.8.07, he paid the requisite fee of Rs.1942/- and Rs.748/- vide drafts, copies whereof are C-5 and C-6. Annexure C-15 is the information bulletin issued by OP NO.3. At page-9 of this bulletin, it was mentioned that the examinations will be held after the end of each semester/year, in the months of December and June, respectively. The case of the complainant was that he was assured that he would be supplied the study material, free of cost, within three months of his admission and that the PCP classes will also be held on every week ends. The case of OP NOs.1 & 2/appellants in appeal No.166 was to the effect that since they were not supplied the study material by OP NO.3/appellant in appeal No.193, they could not arrange the PCP classes in the absence thereof. On the other hand, the case of OP NO.3 was to the effect that it supplied the study material to OP NOs.1 & 2 in time, vide various letters. The question arises, as to whether, the stand of the OPs on the aforesaid aspects of the matter, is correct or not. Annexure R-1 is the first letter dated 21.7.2008 allegedly issued by OP Nos. 1 & 2 to the complainant requesting him to collect the study material. The mode of despatch of this letter was not proved. No AD receipt, UPC or Courier receipt were produced that this letter was delivered to the complainant. It appears that this letter was fabricated later on by OP Nos.1 & 2 to support their stand and to wriggle out of the difficult situation in which they were put. There is another letter dated 14.8.2008 (Annexure R-4) which was relied upon by OP Nos.1 & 2 vide which the study material was allegedly sent to the complainant. R-5 is the circular showing that the examinations were to start from 25.8.2008 and the study material was allegedly being sent on 14.8.2008. The study material, was required to be sent to the complainant, immediately after his admission, so that he would have been able to properly go through the same, with a view to prepare himself for the examination. The study material being allegedly sent on 14.8.2008, i.e. 11 days before the date of examination, could not absolve the OPs of their liability , being deficient, in service. This letter was, therefore, of no avail. OP Nos.1 & 2 also relied upon R-15 which is dated 21.7.2008, R-16 dated 14.8.2008, R-17 and R-17-A both dated 21.8.2008. From these letters, it is not proved that the study material was ever dispatched, to the complainant before July,2008. In fact, the letters R-16 and ,R-17 and R-17A were sent after filing of the complaint to concoct a defence. Since the examination was scheduled to be originally held in June,2008, the complainant could not be expected to wait till July,2008 for the study material. After collecting money, OP Nos.1 & 2 slept over the matter, hardly thinking that the career of the students would be put in jeopardy, if the study material was not supplied to them, in time, as they would not be able to prepare for the examination. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that by not supplying the study material, in time, and by not refunding the amount, OP Nos.1 & 2 were deficient, in rendering service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. 13. According to OP-3, the study material was initially sent on 11.12.2007. A letter in this regard was produced, but it is not evident that it was ever despatched to OP Nos.1 & 2. It was, on the other hand, sent to the Principal/Coordinator, PRIDE study Center. No acknowledgement of its delivery to OP Nos 1 & 2 was produced. . There is another letter dated 26.12.2007, but it was addressed to Apex Educational Group, Punjab and not to OP Nos.1 & 2. Similarly, the letter dated 4.7.2008 was addressed to Apex Educational Group, Haryana, and not to OP NOs 1 & 2. None of these letters is shown to have been delivered to OPs 1 & 2. It appears that such letters were fabricated later on, by OP No.3, to save its skin. On the other hand, OP Nos 1 & 2 sent letters to OP No.3 from time to time for sending the study material. Not only this, OP NO.3, took shelter of the information at page 8 of C-15, wherein, it was mentioned that late supply or non-supply of study material could not be ruled out, under conditions, beyond its control, such as non- receipt of manuscripts and administrative bottlenecks. No document, whatsoever, was placed on record by OP No.3 as to why the study material was not prepared in time. In case, the study material was not prepared by the teachers of OP No.3 in time, action could be taken against them, for improving the administrative system, and to remove the administrative bottlenecks. OP No.3, therefore could not take shelter that since manuscripts were not supplied by the teachers, the study material could not be prepared in time. The District Forum, was also right, in holding that OP NO.3, was also deficient, in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practice. 14. The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 15. For the reasons recorded above, both the aforesaid appeals, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same are dismissed, with costs quantified at Rs.5000/- each. 16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge 17. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
