Advocate Jayashree Kulkarni for the complainant
Opponent No.1 exparte
Advocate Rupadevi Rajeshirke for the Opponent No.2.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 21st August 2013
This complaint is filed by student against the Educational Institute for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant took admission in the Institute of the Opponent No.1 who has started Advanced Diploma in Film Animation course. As per the contents in the brochure the Opponent No.1 assured to render education to the complainant for 18 months for the said course in 5 modules. It was also assured that the Institute will issue Certificate after completion of the course. Total fees of the said course was Rs.1,35,000/-. Complainant has deposited the fees – Rs.1,35,700/- upto 5/1/2009. Course was to be completed in 5 modules. Out of 5 modules Opponent No.1 had completed 3 modules and left the syllabus of two modules as there was no instructor to impart the education to the students. Subsequently the said Institute was handed over to the Opponent No.2. But that Institute has also not completed the course by finishing the syllabus of remaining two modules. It is the case of the complainant that he has lost one academic year as the course was not completed and the Opponents have caused deficiency in service by not completing the syllabus of the said course by not issuing the certificate. He has claimed refund of fees to the tune of Rs.1,35,700/- alongwith interest and compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service.
[2] Opponent No.1 though duly served remained absent. Hence complaint is proceed exparte against the Opponent No.1. Opponent No.2 appeared before this Forum and filed application for deleting its name by stating that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the Opponent No.2. All the monetary transactions were between the complainant and the Opponent No.1. It is also contended that the Opponent No.2 has never caused any deficiency in service and prayed for deleting its name.
[3] Complainant in order to substantiate its contention produced voluminous documents such as receipts, letters, brochure of the said course and it reveals from the same that the Opponent No.1 agreed to impart the education as regards Advanced Diploma in Film Animation. The duration of the said course was 18 months and it was to be completed by bifurcating in five modules. Admittedly the Opponent No.1 had imparted the education for three modules and left the syllabus for two modules. That means the complainant had received knowledge as regards the said course to the extent of 3/5th syllabus but remaining course was not completed by the Opponent No.1. It reveals from the receipts which are produced on record that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,34,700/-. In my opinion as the complainant has received knowledge to some extent hence he is not entitled for refund of entire money but he is entitled for refund of fees partly. Allegations made by the complainant on oath are supported by documentary evidence against the Opponent No.1. But it reveals from the record that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the Opponent No.2. Hence the Opponent No.2 cannot be held guilty for deficiency in service. As the complainant has lost one academic year he is entitled for compensation on that ground. In my opinion complainant is entitled for refund of fees to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as well as Rs.10,000/- for loss of academic year and deficiency in service. He is also entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- for mental and physical strain and cost of the litigation.
In the light of the above discussion I pass the following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed against the Opponent No.1 only.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opponent No.1 has caused deficiency in service by not imparting proper education to the complainant.
3. Opponent No.1 is direct to pay in all Rs.65,000/- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Complaint is dismissed as against the Opponent No.2.
5. Parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place- Pune
Date – 21/08/2013
[S. M. Kumbhar] [V. P. Utpat]
Member President
