IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.167/08 & C.C.No.4/09 C.C.No.167/08 (Filed on 15.11.2008)Between: 1. Pradeep Kumar, Pallavi, Kottarkavu, Mavelikara, Alappuzha District. 2. Karthika Pradeep, -do. –do. (By Adv.M.N. Ramachandran) ..... Complainants And: 1. Mar Athanasios College For- Advanced Studies, Thiruvalla, (MACFAST) Rep. by its Director,` Dr. P.K. Abraham. 2. Rev. Dr. Abraham Mulamoottil, Principal, Mar Athanasios College For- Advanced Studies, Thiruvalla. (By Adv. T.J. Varghese) ..... Opposite parties. C.C.No.4/09 (Filed on 13.01.2009) Between: Sangeetha George, W/o. K.K. Benny, C/o. K.C. Kochukkuru, Kollanour House, Moolepat, Pengamuck.P.O., Kunnamkulam, Thrissur – 680 544. (By Adv. M.N. Ramachandran) ..... Complainant And: 1. TheDirector, Mar Athanasios College For- Advanced Studies, Thiruvalla, (MACFAST), Pin – 689 101. 2. The Principal, -do. –do. (By Adv. T.J. Varghese) ..... Opposite parties. COMMON ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainants have filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. In the above said two cases, the complainants are different. But the opposite parties and dispute in between the parties are one and the same. Hence both these cases are disposed of by a common order. 3. The brief facts of the complaints are as follows:- The 1st opposite party is the Director of Mar Athanasious Colleges for Advanced Studies, Thiruvalla and 2nd opposite party is its Principal. The 2nd complainant in C.C.No.167/08 and the complainant in C.C.No. 4/09 secured admission for the two year M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology course offered by the opposite parties during 8/06. The complainant secured the admission for the said course on the basis of the informations gathered in the prospectus issued by the opposite parties. At the time of admission, the opposite parties made the complainants to believe that the course was approved and affiliated by Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. Admission fees, Semester fees and such other fees is also collected from the complainants. The class for the sub course was started on 7.8.06. As per the College Calendar issued by the opposite parties the 1st Semester Examination was scheduled to start on 4.6.07. But the opposite parties did not conduct the 1st or 2nd Semester Examination as per the college calendar. The reason for not conducting the Semester Examination was enquired by the complainants. But the opposite parties told some lame excuses and had given re-scheduled examination dates. In the suspicious circumstances the complainants made enquiry with M.G. University, Kottayam and they got information from the university under Right to Information Act which reveals that the course to which the complainants were admitted was not at all approved by the university till 17.6.08. Therefore, the complainants collected their T.C & Mark list from the opposite parties and they have discontinued the course. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainants were lost more than one year and the money paid to the opposite parties, thereby the complainants had sustained mental agony and financial loss. The above said sufferings of the complainants were due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to the complainants. Hence this complaint. The complainant in C.C.167/08 claims an amount of ` 18,46,750 under various heads as compensation etc and the complainant in C.C.No.4/09 claims ` 7,39,357 under various heads from the opposite parties. They also claim for the cost of the proceedings. 4. Opposite parties in both the above cases filed separate versions. The main contention of the opposite parties is as follows: Opposite parties admitted the admission of the complainant in their institution for M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology Course during 8/06 and the receipt of the course fees etc. from the complainants. They also admitted that the Semester Examinations for the said course was not conducted in time. They denied the allegations of the complainant that the said course is not approved by the M.G. University and the semester examination was delayed due to their fault. According to the opposite parties, the Govt. of Kerala had given sanction to them for starting the said course and on the basis of the Govt. sanction they have applied to M.G. University for the approval of the said course and seeks permission to conduct the semester examination. But due to the administrative delay of the university authorities, the approval of the course and the permission for conducting university examination was delayed. The delay caused from the part of the M.G. University is not due to any fault of the opposite parties. The difficulties if any caused to the complainants are due to the fault of the university and therefore the complainant’s cause of action is against the university. But the M.G. University is not impleaded as a party to these proceedings. Therefore, this complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. However, the opposite parties conducted the semester examination with the help of an order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. Though the semester examination was delayed they have conducted the semester examinations. So the allegation that the opposite parties failed to conduct the semester examination is false. Later, the course in which the complainants and others are admitted was approved by the university with retrospective effect. Therefore, the allegation that the said course of the opposite parties is not approved by the university is also false. Further, the opposite parties alleges that the complainants in both the cases voluntarily withdrawn from the course for joining some other courses or for accepting some employment. So the allegation of deficiency in service and the alleged loss of the complainants are baseless and the complainants have no cause of action against the opposite parties and the above complaints are not allowable. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their costs, as they have not committed any deficiency of services to the complainants. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and on the basis of the I.A’s.134/10 and 135/10 filed by opposite parties challenging the maintainability of these complaints before this Forum, which is filed after the closure of the evidence, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the forum? (2) Whether the complainants are entitled to get reliefs as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Reliefs & Costs? 6. The evidence in C.C.No.167/08 consists of the proof affidavit of the 2nd complainant and one witness for the opposite parties and the oral depositions of PWs.1 and 2 and DWs.1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A6 and Exts. B1 to B11 series. 7. The evidence in C.C. No.4/09 consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and one witness for the opposite parties and the oral depositions of PWs.1 and 2 and DWs.1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A10 and Exts. B1 to B10. After closure of the evidence, both sides were heard. 8. Point No.1:- The complainants allegation against the opposite party is that the complainants are the students of the opposite parties for M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology. For securing the admission, complainants have paid tuition fees, semester fees etc. to the opposite parties. The course offered by the opposite party is not approved by the M.G. University and the semester examinations were not conducted by the opposite parties within the stipulated time. The above said act of the opposite party is a deficiency in service and the complainants are consumers of the opposite parties. Therefore according to the complainants, these complaints are maintainable before this Forum. On the other hand, the opposite parties contention is that the responsibility for conducting the university examinations is with M.G. University and the opposite parties are not liable for conducting university examinations. So the university is a necessary party to these proceedings, but they are not impleaded as a party to these proceedings. Therefore, this complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Apart from the above objection, the opposite party also filed 2 petitions as I.A’s.134/10 & 135/10 challenging the maintainability of this complaint in the light of a ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court [ (2009) 8 SCC 483] that student is not a consumer and the university is not a service provider and the CDRF has no jurisdiction to try a case claiming compensation due to the delay in conducting the examinations. But on a perusal of materials on record it is seen that the allegation of the complainants is only against the opposite parties and the allegation is that the opposite parties failed to conduct the university examination due to non- obtaining of the approval and affiliation of the course from the university. Moreover, the complainants had no grievances against the university also. Therefore, the contention of the opposite parties regarding the non-joinder issue and the contention based on the Supreme Court decision had no applicability in this case and is not sustainable. Therefore, the 1st point is found in favour of the complainants and the I.A’s 134/10 & 135/10 are dismissed. 9. Point Nos.2 & 3:- The allegation of the complainants in both cases is one and the same. According to the complainants, opposite parties offered admission to the complainants for M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology Course impressing the complainants that the said course is approved by the Govt. and recognized by the M.G. University. Believing the words of the opposite parties and on the basis of the information gathered from the prospectus of the opposite parties, the complainants secured admission to the said course during 8/06 by paying the required fees demanded by the opposite parties. The classes for the said course started and they attended the classes and continued there as students as such. The complainant of C.C.No.167/08 continued there till June, 2008 and the complainant in C.C.No.4/09 continued there till January 2008. But till then the semester examination of the said course was not conducted by the opposite parties as per the college calendar. Thereafter, they enquired the reasons for not conducting the semester examinations from the opposite parties. But the opposite parties told the complainants some lame excuses for not conducting the semester examinations. So they enquired the reasons for not conducting the semester examination from M.G. University under Right to Information Act and the university informed the complainants that the course in which the complainants are studying at the opposite parties institution has not been approved by the university and has not granted affiliation by the university. According to the complainants, the information received from the university is against the information provided by the opposite parties. The said information shocked the complainants and they realised that the time and money spent by them in the opposite party’s institution is lost and it spoiled their future also. Such a loss was due to the negligence and deficiency of service of the opposite parties and because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainants had sustained mental agony, financial loss and the period spent at that institution was lost from their entire career. 10. In order to prove the case of the complainant in C.C.167/08, the 2nd complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of her chief examination. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the 2nd complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. The Joint Registrar of M.G. University is also examined for the complainant as PW2 and one document produced by PW2 is marked as Ext.A6. Ext.A1 is the prospectus issued by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the reply letter dated 16.7.08 issued by the Public Information Officer of M.G. University to the 1st complainant and the father of PW1 stating that M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology Course of the opposite parties has not been approved by the university till date. Ext.A3 and A4 are the cash receipts issued by the opposite party in the name of PW1 for the collection of admission fee, semester fees etc. Ext.A5 is the certificate-dated 30.9.08 issued by the Punjab National Bank showing that PW1 had availed an educational loan. Ext.A6 is the true copy of Page No.20 of a register kept by M.G. University showing the details of the courses approved by the university for the opposite parties institution from 2001 onwards. 11. In order to prove the case of the complainant in C.C.No. 4/09, the complainant of that case filed a proof affidavit in lieu of her chief examination. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 in C.C.4/09 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. The Joint Registrar of M.G. University was also examined for the complainant as PW2. Ext.A1 and A1(a) are the postal receipts of the registered notice issued to the opposite parties. Ext.A2 and A2(a) are the postal acknowledgment cards of the registered notice issued to the opposite parties. Ext.A3 is the prospectus issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A4 is the letter-dated 4.1.08 issued by the Public Information Officer, M.G. University addressed to one K. George Mathew, father of the complainant stating that M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology course at the opposite party’s institution is not affiliated to M.G. University. Ext.A5 is another letter dated 17.6.08 issued by the Public Information Officer, M.G. University addressed to one K.K. Benny stating that the M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology course of the opposite party is not affiliated. Ext.A6 is also a similar letter dated 26.07.2008 like Ext.A4 and A5 addressed to one K.C. Kochukkuru. Ext.A7 is a letter dated 24.4.09 issued by Public Infomation Officer, M.G. University in the name of one Sangeetha George, the complainant stating that her name is not registered in the university for M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology course. Ext.A8 series and A9 series are the cash receipts issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant for the payment of admission fee, tuition fee etc. Ext.A10 is the Calendar for the year 2007-08 of the opposite parties. 12. On the other hand, the opposite parties contention is that the opposite party had applied for getting affiliation for M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology course before M.G.University during January, 2005. On the basis of the said application, M.G. University had given oral sanction for starting the course in the year 2005-06 and the syllabus and scheme of the course was also approved by the university on 12.10.06. On the basis of the above sanction, opposite parties started the said course in the year 2005-06 and continued admissions for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. However, in the year 2008-09 university directed opposite parties not to admit students to the said course. The 1st semester examination of the 2005-06 batch was conducted during 2007 February and the result was declared on 28.5.07 and the 2nd semester examination of the 2005-06 batch was conducted during 2007 June and the 3rd semester examination was conducted on 16.9.09. The 1st semester examination of the 2006 batch, wherein the complainants are studying was conducted on 20.06.08, 23.06.08, 25.06.08 and the remaining semester examination were also completed in due course. The delay caused in conducting the semester examination was not due to the fault of the opposite party but it is due to the fault of the university resulted from certain political interferences. The opposite parties tried their level best to conduct the examinations and completed the course in due time. So there is no deficiency from their part and no other students other than the complainants has not filed any complaints against the opposite parties. The above said complaints are filed only for defaming the institution and putting the opposite parties to losses and sufferings. The complainant in C.C.167/08 voluntarily discontinued the course and collected her T.C for securing admission for B.Ed Course and the complainant in C.C.No.4/09 also voluntarily discontinued from the course and obtained her T.C. for securing admission for MBA course. 13. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite party in C.C.No.167/08 the Registrar of M.G. University was examined as DW1 and the office Superintendent of the opposite party was examined as DW2 and Exts.B1 to B11 series were marked. Ext.B1 is marked through PW1, Exts.B2 and B3 are marked through PW2. Ext.B4 to B7 is marked through DW1 and B8 to B11 series were marked through DW2. Ext.B1 is the hall ticket issued by M.G. University for the 1st semester examination of M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology issued in the name of PW1. Ext.B2 is the order-dated 13.11.09 of M.G. University regularising the M.Sc. Psycho Medical Sciences & Technology course conducted in the opposite party’s institution from 2005 onwards. Ext.B3 is the copy of Page No.57 of the M.G. University diary for the year 2008. Ext.B4 is the copy of the application-dated 31.01.2005 submitted by the opposite party before the M.G. University for obtaining sanction to start certain courses. Ext.B5 is the letter-dated 10.6.05 of the Registrar of M.G. University addressed to the Principal Secretary to Govt., Higher Education attached with list of new courses proposed to be started during 2005-06. Ext.B6 is the Govt. order dated 8.7.05 in respect of Ext.B5. Ext.B7 is the order of M.G. University dated 12.10.06 approving the scheme and syllabus of M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology course. Ext.B8 is the notification dated nil issued by M.G. University regarding the publication of the M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology course results. Ext.B9 is a covering letter addressed to the opposite party from M.G. University dated 08.06.06 stating that hall tickets of second semester examination is forwarding. Ext.B10 is the copy of the timetable for the 3rd semester (2005) admission and 1st semester (2007) admission. Ext.B11 is the copy of the notification-dated 20.3.07 regarding the date of notification of the 4th and final semester M.Sc. Bio Informatics examination results. Ext.B11(a) is the notification of M.G. University dated 12.2.08 regarding the date of notification of Bio Informatics Examination final semester results. 14. In C.C.4/09 also the contention of the opposite party is very same as that in the other case. In C.C.4/09 also opposite parties examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and Exts.B1 to B10(a) were marked. The depositions of DWs.1 and 2 and the exhibits herein were also the same as that of the other case. Hence we are not reproducing in the same again. 15. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties of these complaints, we have perused the entire materials on record. On a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the admission of the complainants, collection of the fees from the complainants and there is also no dispute that the semester examinations were not conducted by the opposite party till the complainants’ withdrawal from the course. The only dispute remains is with regard to the reason for not conducting the semester examinations at the end of each semesters. According to the complainants, the course of M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology course offered by the opposite party was not approved by M.G. University and this fact was purposely suppressed by the opposite parties at the time of the admission and the opposite parties impressed the complainants that the course is affiliated by the university by showing the prospectus and the reason for not conducting the semester examinations was due to the non approval of the course by the university. According to the opposite parties, the said course was approved by the Govt. and the affiliation process of the university was delayed due to some political reasons and later the course was recognized by the university and conducted the semester examinations and the complainants were voluntarily withdrawn from the course for joining some other courses without waiting for appearing for the semester examinations. 16. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, we have scrutinized the oral testimonies of the witnesses and the exhibits marked from both sides in both the cases. Exts.A1 in C.C.167/08 is the prospectus given by the opposite parties. As per the prospectus, the opposite party institution is affiliated to M.G. University (Page No.1) and the courses offered by the said institution include M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology (Page No.3). As per Ext.A2 in C.C.167/08, the letter dated 17.6.08 issued by the Public Information Officer of M.G. University, Kottayam. M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology course offered and conducting by the opposite party has not been approved by the University till 17.6.08 whereas the admission was made during 8/06. From the above evidence, it is clear that the course to which the complainants were admitted was not affiliated or recognized by the university at the time of admission. According to the opposite parties, they have obtained the affiliation for the said course and conducted the semester examination. In order to prove the said aspects, the opposite parties produced the copy of the University Order No.5047/2489/01/7/AC.A7 dated 13.11.09, which is marked as Ext.B2 in C.C.No.167/08. As per Ext.B2, the course was regularized by the university only on 13.11.09 whereas the complainants withdrawn from the course prior to the date of Ext.B2 order. Further, on going through Ext.B2 order it can be seen that the affiliation was delayed due to the laches of the opposite parties. The explanation of the opposite party for the delay in getting the course affiliated is that it is due to some political interferences. But there is no evidence to support the said argument. Opposite parties also contended that they have conducted the semester examinations of the complainants on the basis of an order from the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. But they have not produced any evidence to prove the same. The copy of the semester examination timetable is produced and marked as Ext.B9 in C.C.No.4/09. But it does not relate to the complainants course. The said timetable is related to 2005 batch and 2007 batch whereas the complainants are admitted in 2006 batch. 17. The another contention of the opposite parties is that the complainants have discontinued the course and withdrawned from the course not due to any fault of the opposite parties. Instead, they have withdrawned from the course for joining some other courses, though the university had recognised the course and conducted the semester examinations. But the said contention is not supported with any cogent evidence. The Joint Registrar of M.G. University was examined as PW2 in both cases and the Registrar of the University was examined as PW1 in both cases. The deposition of the said witnesses also shows that the course to which the complainants were admitted was not affiliated at the time of admission and the affiliation was given only on 13.11.2009 vide Ext.B2 in C.C.167/08 with retrospective effect. As per the evidence of these cases, the complainants discontinued the course and withdrawned from the course prior to Ext.B2 order of the University. According to the complainants, they secured admission on the belief that the course is affiliated and recognised by the University and the semester examinations will be conducted properly. But the things happened negatively and the complainants’ expectation of getting a masters degree in M.Sc. Phytomedical Science & Technology after the completion of the course was spoiled. Moreover, they have collected the transfer certificate and other documents from the college after getting confirmed information from the University about the non-affiliation of the course. In the circumstances, nobody can blame the complainants for their decision for withdrawing from the course. The entire evidence of these complainants shows that the opposite parties admitted the complainants to an unaffiliated and unrecognised course and the semester examination was not conducted properly and the responsibility for not getting affiliation and not conducting the semester examinations were due to the laches and negligence of the opposite parties. Because of the above said laches and negligence of the opposite parties, the complainants have lost more than 1 ½ years from their academic carrier. The loss caused to the complainants has to be compensated by the opposite parties. In the circumstances, we find that the opposite parties have committed a clear deficiency in service. Therefore, these complaints are allowable with compensation and cost. However, the complainants have not adduced any cogent evidence for ascertaining the damages sustained to them due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties. Therefore, these complaints can be allowed with modifications. 18. In the result, C.C. 167/08 and C.C. 4/09 are allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to return the amounts collected from the complainants vide receipts issued by the opposite parties with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of these complaints along with compensation of ` 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with cost of `5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants are allowed to realise the whole amount with 10% interest per annum from today till the realisation of the whole amount. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2011. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: C.C. No. 167/08Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Karthika Pradeep. PW2 : Sankari Amma. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Prospectus of Mar Athanasios College for Advanced Studies. A2 : Letter dated 17.06.2008 isisued by the Public Information Officer & Joint Registrar (Admn – II), M.G. University, Kottayam to Pradeepkumar. K.N. A3 : Receipt dated 10.08.2006 for ` 33,250 issued by the opposite party to Karthika Pradeep. A4 : Receipt dated 09.04.2007 for ` 31,250 issued by the opposite party to Karthika Pradeep. A5 : Certificate dated 30.09.2008 issued by the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Mavelikara to Karthika Pradeep. A6 : Photocopy of Page No.20 of the register kept by M.G. University. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 : M.R. Unni. DW2 : Saji John. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: B1 : Hall ticket issued to the second complainant by the M.G. University. B2 : Affiliation order dated 13.11.2009 issued by the Joint Registrar, M.G. University. B3 : Page No.57 of the University Diary of the year 2008. B4 : Photocopy of the form of application for starting post graduate courses. B5 : Letter dated 10.06.2005 sent by the Registrar to the Principal Secretary to Govt., Higher Education (B) Department, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram and the list of new course/new colleges proposed to be started during 2005-06. B6 : Govt. Order No.G.O.(M.S) No.88/05/H.Edn. dated 8.07.2005. B7 : Photocopy of the order dated 12.10.2006 of Mahatma Gandhi University. B8 : Photocopy of the Notification of Mahatma Gandhi University. B9 : Photocopy of the letter dated 08.06.2007 issued by the Controller of Examination, M.G. University to the Principal, M.A. College of Advanced Studies, Thiruvalla. B10 : Photocopy of the Notification dated 16.09.2009 of Mahatma Gandhi University. B11 : Photocopy of the Notification dated 20.03.2007of Mahatma Gandhi University. B11(a): Photocopy of the Notification dated 12.03.2008 of Mahatma Gandhi University. C.C. No. 4/09Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Sangeetha George. PW2 : Sankari Amma. K.R. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 & A1(a) : Postal receipts. A2 & A2(a) : Acknowledgment cards. A3 : Prospectus of Mar Athanasios College for Advanced Studies. A4 : Letter dated 04.01.2008 sent by the Public Information Officer, M.G. University, Kottayam to Sri. George. K. Mathew. A5 : Letter dated 20.07.2008 issued by the Public Information Officer, M.G. University, Kottayam to Sri. Binny. K.K. A6 : Letter dated 17.06.2008 issued by the Public Information Officer, M.G. University, Kottayam to Sri. K.C. Kochukkuru. A7 : Letter dated 24.04.2009 issued by the Joint Registrar & Public Information Officer, M.G. University to the complainant. A8 : Receipt dated 21.06.2006 for ` 9,000 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A8(a): Receipt dated 21.06.2006 for ` 6,000 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A8(b): Receipt dated 21.06.2006 for ` 33,250 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A8(c): Receipt dated 18.03.2007 for ` 407 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A8(c): Receipt dated 18.0.4.2007 for ` 31,250 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9 : Receipt dated 16.08.2006 for ` 5,350 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(a): Receipt dated 10.10.2006 for ` 1,800 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(b): Receipt dated 06.11.2006 for ` 1,800 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(c): Receipt dated 04.12.2006 for ` 1,500 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(d): Receipt dated 04.01.2007 for ` 1,800 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(e): Receipt dated 12.02.2007 for ` 1,800 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(f): Receipt dated 09.03.2007 for ` 1,800 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(g): Receipt dated 24.04.2007 for ` 1,400 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(h): Receipt dated 17.06.2007 for ` 1,800 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(i): Receipt dated 08.07.2007 for ` 1,800 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(j): Receipt dated 14.08.2007 for ` 1,400 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(k): Receipt dated 05.09.2007 for ` 1,800 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A9(l) : Receipt dated 07.10.2007 for ` 1,800 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A10 : Students Handbook/Calendar 2007-08 of the opposite party. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 : M.R. Unni. DW2 : Saji John. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: B1 : Order dated 13.11.2009 of Mahatma Gandhi University. B2 : Diary 2008 of Mahatma Gandhi University. B3 : Photocopy of the form of application for starting post graduate courses. B4 : Letter dated 10.06.2005 sent by the Registrar to the Principal Secretary to Govt., Higher Education (B) Department, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram and the list of new course/new colleges proposed to be started during 2005-06. B5 : Govt. Order No.G.O.(M.S) No.88/05/H.Edn. dated 8.07.2005. B6 : Photocopy of the order dated 12.10.2006 of Mahatma Gandhi University. B7 : Photocopy of the notification of Mahatma Gandhi University. B8 : Photocopy of the letter dated 08.06.2007 issued by the Controller of Examination, M.G. University to the Principal, M.A. College of Advanced Studies, Thiruvalla. B9 : Photocopy of the Notification dated 16.09.2009 of Mahatma Gandhi University. B10 : Photocopy of the Notification dated 20.03.2007of Mahatma Gandhi University. B10(a): Photocopy of the Notification dated 12.03.2008 of Mahatma Gandhi University. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to: (1) Pradeep Kumar, Pallavi, Kottarkavu, Mavelikara, Alappuzha District. (2) Karthika Pradeep, -do. –do. (3) Sangeetha George, C/o. K.C. Kochukkuru, Kollanour House, Moolepat,Pengamuck.P.O., Kunnamkulam, Thrissur – 680 544. (4) Dr. P.K. Abraham, Director, Mar Athanasios College for Advanced Studies, Thiruvalla, (MACFAST), Pin – 689 101. (5) The Principal, -do. –do. (6) The stock file. | 
