By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-

The complaint filed against the Opposite Parties to compensate the loss and hardships of the Complainants along with the refunding of the fees remitted for the job oriented course.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Opposite Party has advertised of job oriented course of Diploma in Systems and Networking (DSN). In anticipation of qualifying the job oriented course the Complainant remitted fees. The 1^st Opposite Party is the provider of the DSN course. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the learning center. The 3^rd Opposite Party is the franchisee of implementing the courses in different places of the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 4^th Opposite Party is the study center at Sulthan Bathery. The classes were started and discontinued. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties issued the prospectus including the syllabus of course. The applications were given to the 3^rd Opposite Party which forwarded to the 1^st Opposite Party and the admission of the Complainants were effected as such. The Complainants were issued the identity cards. The program were advertised as to be completed in semester wise. The classes were run in the premises of 4^th Opposite Party. The printed study materials practical section assignment for assessment and industrial related project were also there in the study programme.

3. The 1^st Complainant paid Rs.35,000/- the 2^nd Complainant paid Rs.30,000/-, 3^rd Complainant remitted Rs.30,000/-, 4^th Complainant had to pay Rs.28,600/-, Rs.25,300/- was the payment of 5^th Complainant and 6^th Complainant remitted Rs.10,000/- this were the mode of payment by the Complainants towards course fees to the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties. For the study purpose, the Complainants had to purchase computer system that also caused an additinal expense of Rs.25,000/- per each Complainant. The course consists of 10 subject and it would be completed within one year that was before March 2010. The learning hours for the course was claimed to be 360 hours. The classes started in the venue of 3^rd and 4^th Opposite parties such were completed within a period of 90 hours . The subsequently the Opposite Party stop the course the reason for stopping the course according them was no sufficient strength of students. The Complainants approached the Opposite Party and knocked the doors one after the other. They were not ready to stick on to their promises instead they evaded from their assurance. The future and the money that spent by the Complainants were thrown in to dismay. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to return back Rs.35,000/- to the 1^st Complainant, Rs.30,000/- each to the 2^nd and 3^rd Complainants, Rs.28,600/- to the 4^th Complainant, Rs.25,300/- to the 5^th Complainant and Rs.10,000/- to the 6^th complainant as the fees remitted and there may be a direction to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to each of the Complainant by the Opposite Party along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

4. The 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties are declared exparte.

5. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The 2^nd Opposite Party is promoting the job oriented course in various parties of the country and set up the franchisee of it under the licence. Hardware and Software training are given to the schoolers through many of their franchisee around the glob. The 3^rd Opposite party is one among the franchisee not in function at present. The 2^nd Opposite Party has no tie up with the 1^st Opposite Party providing the course under distant education system. This 2^nd Opposite Party is in agreement with 1^st Opposite Party for the course through learning centers. The applications of the Complainants were sent to the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties. The 2^nd Opposite Party had not received any application. The role of this Opposite Party is only to canvas the students for the programme. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties had issued identity card to the Complainant.

6. The course fees were directly remitted in the franchisee center IIHT that is 3^rd Opposite Party. The courses are done by the franchisee centers not by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party has no knowledge of the discontinuation of the course if it is found that Complainants are genuinely aggrieved, this Opposite Party is ready to make necessary arrangements for the completion of the course from any other near by franchisee. The Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and cost hence it is to be dismissed with cost.

7. The 4^th Opposite Parties filed version in brief is as follows:- The 4^th Opposite Party had not given any advertisement on the scope and procedure of admission of the course. This Opposite Party had not conducted the course named DSN the Complainants had not given any fees for the course to the 4^th Opposite Party has claimed by the Complainant. On the assurance of the course and scope this Opposite Party is ignorant the Complainants were not advised to purchase computer for the purpose of course. The course that averred in the complaint were advertised and that is not connected to the 4^th Opposite Party and the period of the course is also known to other Opposite Parties.

8. The Opposite Party is conducting a Parallel College therein the courses as such +2, B.A, B com, M.A and M com classes are conducted. When the 3^rd Opposite Party approached this Opposite Party to conduct the course in the responsibility of 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, the accommodation for the conduction of the classes were given by this Opposite Party and that was purely rent basis. An agreement was executed with the 3^rd Opposite Party in respect of rent and the responsibility. This Opposite Party is not having any touch or remote connection in the operation of the course. In the terms of agreement the full responsibility is undertaken by 3^rd Opposite Party. If any liability arises it is under taken by the other Opposite Parties except the 4^th Opposite Party. This Opposite Party is an unnecessary party and the complaint is to be dismissed for that reasons.

9. The points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service in the conduction of the study course.

2. Relief and cost.

10. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consist of the oral testimony of the 2^nd Complainant who is examined as PW1 Exts A1 to A11 and B1 are the documents. The 4^th Opposite Party is also examined as OPW1.

11. It is admitted by the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties that the course named DSN (Diploma in System and Networking) started in the institute of 4^th Opposite Party which was dropped before completion of the course. The Complainant who remitted the fees anticipating a job oriented course certificate turn to be in dismay. It is strange to note that the 2^nd Opposite Party is the learning center of the 1^st Opposite Party who was not aware of the discontinuity of the course. The classes started in March 2009 the student who admitted for the course remitted the fees to the respective Opposite Party. Any how study materials and classes were conducted under the sponsorship of the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties. On perusal of the documents it is seen that the 1^st Complainant remitted Rs.25,000/- to the 3^rd Opposite Party on 15.06.2009. The 2^nd Complainant paid Rs.20,000/- to 3^rd Opposite Party and Rs.10,000/- to the 4^th Opposite Party, the 3^rd Complainant has given Rs.30,000/- to the 3^rd Opposite Party. Rs.18,600/- was given to the 2^nd Opposite Party and Rs.10,000/- was given to 4^th Opposite Party. The 5^th Complainant remitted in total Rs.25,000/- and 3^rd Opposite Party was given receipt for the same. The 6^th Complainant remitted Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- to 3^rd Opposite Party and another Rs.5,000/- to 4^th Complainant. According to the 1^st Complainant in addition to Rs.25,000/- remitted Rs.10,000/- in the office of the 4^th Opposite Party but receipt for the same was not given to him. The 4^th Opposite Party is an institution who conducts the parallel courses ranging from +2 to PG courses. It is deposed by the PW1 that the Complainants joined the course relying on the reputation and responsibility of the 4^th Opposite Party. Ext.B1 is the memorandum of understanding executed in presence of witness between the 3^rd Opposite party and the Secretary of Bathery Co operative Arts College who is arrayed as 4^th Opposite Party. There is clear undertaken by the 4^th Opposite Party to conduct course in college it is strange to note that the 3^rd Opposite Party who received a considerable part of the fees abstained himself from appearing in this Forum and they are declared exparte. The course was started in the institution of 4^th Opposite Party in memorandum of understanding executed on 29.11.2008. There is clear visper in that if the strength of the students exceeds 100 then the net profit with the excess student will be shared in the ratio 60 :40 between 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties. The course offered is the result of the joined venture of 1^st to 3^rd Opposite Parties. From the inferences above we are in the opinion that the act of the Opposite Party is absolutely a deficiency in service and the future of the student who joined the courses of DSN had to pay considerable amount and it is to be compensated. The Opposite Parties who received fees from the Complainants are to be refunded along with cost and compensation. The 1^st Opposite Party has no direct involvement in the course but the course included in the scheme of Distant Education of Sikkim, Manipal University. Ext.A10 is the prospectus which details the scope and authenticity of the course. The brochure published by the 2^nd Opposite party is Ext.A11. From the above inferences it is to be considered that none of the Opposite Party can be excluded from the responsibility and liability of the loss and hardships caused to the Complainants.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 2^nd Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.18,600/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand and Six hundred only) to the 4^th Complainant. The 3^rd Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to 1^st Complainant, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the 2^nd Complainant, Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) to the 3^rd Complainant, Rs.25,300/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand and Three hundred only) to the 5^th Complainant and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the 6^th Complainant. Towards the cost and compensation the 1^st to 4^th Opposite Parties are directed to give Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to each of the Complainant. The complainants are entitle for the cost and compensation jointly and severally from the 1^st to 4^th Opposite Parties. This is to complied by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 26^th July 2011.

Date of filing:25.02.2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/ Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainants:

PW1. Nivin. 2^nd Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Thomas. Secretary, Co-operative College, Sulthan Bathery.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Receipt. dt:15.06.2009.

A2. Receipt. dt:26.06.2009.

A3 series. Receipts.

A4 series. Receipts.

A5. Receipt. dt:27.05.2009.

A6 series. Receipts.

A7 series. Receipts.

A8. Receipt. dt:26.05.2009.

A9. Receipt.

A10. Prospectus 2009.

A11. Book.

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Memorandum of Understanding.