BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 21st of January 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SRI. ARUN KUMAR.K : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.99/2010
(Admitted on 12.3.2010)
Mr.Ishwarachandra Bhat,
Aged about 34 years,
So Narasimha Bhat,
Asst. Manager,
Bharath Auto Cars P Ltd.,
N.H.17, Kuntikan Junction,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. Deenanath Shetty)
VERSUS
- Divakar, Authorised Centre Manager,
Authorised Signatory ICA,
Institute of Computer Accountants,
Bramari Nilaya,
Sathyanarayana Nagar,
Kotekar Post,
Mangalore.
- Satish, General Manager,
ICA Institute of Computer
Accountants Centre, 4th floor,
Crystal Arcade,
Near Roopa Hotel,
Hampankatta Road,
Mangalore.
- Chairman, Authorized Signatory,
The Institute of Computer
Accountants, ICA, ISO 9001,
Institute Head Office, 27 Nethaji
Subhaschandra Road, (N.S.Road)
4th & 5th Floor, Kolkatta. ….. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No.1 and 2: Exparte)
(Advocate for Opposite Party No.3: Sri.K.Shivarama Rao)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, Opposite Party No.1 and 2 have been running institute of Computer Accountants known as ‘ICA Institute’. The Opposite Parties have released the brochure and pamphlet where through they had manifested and advertised that, ‘an accounts training institute running successfully for the last 8 years all over India guided by the vision of more than 300 chartered accountants with varied professional expertise in the core subject like accounts, income tax etc. etc. and also advertised as to job guarantee and satisfaction on successful completion of course’. It is stated that, being highly allured by the advertisement and publication, the Complainant had intended to join training course at the institute run by the Opposite Parties and paid a sum of Rs.22,920/- on 01.06.2007. It is stated that, the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to complete 10 modules as included various subjects to be taught to the Complainant through chartered accountants graduates as revealed under the brochure, whereas, the Opposite Parties did not complete 10 modules instead the modules 1, 2, 4 and 8 having been completed and rest of the modules had not been completed by providing training as well as coaching as promised by them. It is stated that, as the course being directly conducted by Opposite Party No.3 at Balmatta, Mangalore and requested the Complainant to continue his residuary modules at the said premises of the institute. As per the direction of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant joined the training course under the Opposite Party No.3 but Opposite Party No.3 failed to complete none of the residuary modules and to provide training and coaching by chartered accountant graduates despite of collecting fee from the Complainant.
Further it is stated that, there were no adequate staff in the institute run by the Opposite Parties being ill-equipped as the necessary instruments were not available and were also inadequate for the students. It is stated that, as per the communication dated 11.04.2008 issued by the Opposite Party No.3, the licence of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 have been cancelled and Opposite Party No.3 is not recognized institute and misled the Complainant in document No.1 and 2. It is stated that, the Opposite Parties collected a sum of Rs.3,371/- towards external examination fee on 28.07.2008 as per bill dated 28.07.2008. The Opposite Party No.3 without completing the syllabus, conducted online examination in the month of February 2009. The Complainant had appeared for the examination and came to know that the examination was not registered and till today the result of the examination has not been published and the Complainant is not in receipt of the marks card. Because of the above, the entire academic year is ruined and the Opposite Parties through false advertisement have mislead the Complainant to join their institution and contended that, the Complainant paid the education fee as well as the examination fee but the Opposite Parties by misleading the Complainant collected the amount and committed deficiency in service while giving service to the Complainant and hence, the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to refund a sum of Rs.26,291/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of payment and also claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2. The postal acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1 and 2.
Opposite Party No.3 appeared through their counsel filed version and stated that, the complaint is barred by limitation and hence the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that, the Complainant is very lethargic in attending the classes, he wanted the certificate without giving exams. When his idea was not materialized due to his own failure he filed the present complaint. It is stated that, Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are the Ex-franchise, Opposite Party No.3 is running the occasional institute. The Complainant joined the course with full interest but has failed to maintain the same interest thereafter in his studies. It is stated that, institute being run by the Opposite Party No.3 is recognized by City and Guilds Accreditation Accounting and also recognized as ISO 9001:2000. The Opposite Party No.3 has got its branches all over India and it is functioning satisfactorily and contended that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The Complainant is bound by the rules and regulations of the prospectus of the 3rd Opposite Party and he is required to adhere the same and complete the course by attending the various classes and also attend offline and online exams and all the allegations alleged in the complaint are denied and contended that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, the Complainant – Mr.Ishwarachandra Bhat (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C10 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Mr.Suresh Pesengi, Area Development Manager, (RW-1) of Opposite Party No.3 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 to R6 were marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure. Complainant and Opposite Party No.3 produced written notes of arguments along with citations.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
The Complainant sown to the fact that, he had joined for training course in ICA with the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 by paying Rs.22,920/- on 01.06.2007 but it is contended that, the Opposite Parties not completed 10 modules as included various subjects to be taught to the Complainant through Chartered Accountants Graduates as per the brochure issued by the Opposite Party. It is stated that, they have completed modules 1, 2, 4 and 8 as per the Opposite Parties communication dated 22.05.2008. But according to the Complainant, they have not completed the above modules as advertised in their advertisement/brochure. It is further stated that, Opposite Party No.3 failed to complete none of the residuary modules and providing training and coaching to the Complainant by Chartered Accountant Graduates and there is no adequate staff to run the institute. The Opposite Parties being ill-equipped as the necessary instruments were not available and were also inadequate for the students. And further stated that, Opposite Party No.3 not an accredited institute of City of Guilds and not recognized institute. The Opposite Party collected Rs.3,371/- towards external examination fee on 28.07.2008 and conducted online examination in the month of February 2009 without completing the syllabus and the Complainant had appeared for the examination and came to know that the examination was not registered and till today the result of the examination has not been published and contended that the Opposite Parties indulged in unfair trade practice and also committed deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant and produced Ex C1 to C10.
On the other hand, the Opposite Parties also sworn to the fact that, the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are Ex-franchisee, Opposite Party No.3 is running the above institution and the same is recognized by City and Guilds Accreditation Accounting and also recognized as ISO 9001:2000. It is stated that, the Complainant is very lethargic in attending the classes. It is further stated that, the Complainant is bound by the rules and regulation of the prospectus of the 3rd Opposite Party and he is required to adhere the same and complete the course by attending the various classes and also attend offline and online examinations and stated that there is no deficiency and produced Ex R1 to R6.
On scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the Ex C1 and Ex C2 i.e., the brochure and pamphlet, Ex C3 and C4 are the communications dated 22.05.2008 and 11.04.2008, the above documents reveals that, the Complainant joined the ICA course with the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are the Ex-franchise and Opposite Party No.3 is running the above institution at present. The Complainant joined the above course by paying Rs.22,920/- on 01.06.2007 but the letter dated 11.04.2008 issued by the Opposite Party No.3 reveals that, the licence of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 i.e., the Ex-franchise having been cancelled and Opposite Party No.3 is running the above said institution. Further, Opposite Party No.1 and 2 i.e., the Ex-franchise sent a communication dated 22.05.2008 to the Complainant stating that, their franchise was cancelled which was located in G.H.S. Road Mangalore and the same has been made necessary arrangements to continue the course with the Opposite Party No.3. The above documents itself shows that, though the franchise of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 having been cancelled, the Opposite Parties have made necessary arrangements to continue the course with the Opposite Party No.3 to the Complainant is to be appreciated in this case. If at all, the Opposite Party No.3 not completed the modules as stated by the Complainant he ought to have taken steps at the earliest point of time we could say in the year 2008 itself when the franchise of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 was cancelled. But no such steps were taken by the Complainant is fatal to his case.
However, the Opposite Party No.3 appearing before this FORA admitted that, the franchise of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 were cancelled and the Opposite Party No.3 is running the above institute and sworn to the fact that, the Complainant appears to have joined the course with full interest but has failed to maintain the same interest thereafter in his studies. Further, the institution of the Opposite Party No.3 is recognized and produced Ex R2 i.e., the original recognition certificate from City and Guilds Accredited Centre and also recognized as ISO 9001:2000. The above document is not contradicted by the Complainant. The another document the Ex R3 is the original prospectus, Ex R4 is the students’ personal details, Ex R5 also students’ personal details and Ex R6 is the feed back obtained by the students including the Complainant show that, the Complainant had not attended the classes regularly and he was absent and irregular. Further, the Complainant during the period from 16.07.2008, 08.08.2008 remained absent and again on 31.08.2008, from 29.07.2008 upto 19.08.2008. The above attendance register produced by the Opposite Party shows that, the Complainant was irregular and not attending the classes as stated supra. And again the prospectus produced by the Opposite Party clearly reveals that, in Clause No.21 “for course completion the student has to appear and clear the exams of all modules pending within one month from the date of course completion else the student will not be allowed to appear for further exams and he/she will neither get the certificate nor job guarantee”. In Clause No.28 further states that, “the registration of the student stands cancelled if he/she remains absent for two weeks or more consecutively, without any written permission from the centre in charge”. As we know, in each institution there is a prospectus under which certain rules and regulations are framed to be followed by the students as well as the faculty members/ institution. But in the instant case, the Complainant failed to attend the class regularly and the feed back given by the Complainant in his own handwriting with signature shows that the Complainant was happy with the classes and also appreciated the faculty and ICA Centre. When that being the case, it is the duty of the Complainant to prove that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service by not providing the training. But the documents produced by the Opposite Parties shows that, the Complainant was absent and not regular in attending classes.
It is a well known fact that, all educational institutions have their own set of rules and regulations governing various aspects of their management, schedule of fee payment and discipline. Compliance with these rules and regulations is necessary for smooth and efficient functioning of educational institutions/ school/colleges as well as for its reputation. In the instant case, the Complainant not disputed the prospectus produced by the Opposite Parties, that means, he is abide by all rules and regulations governing various aspects of the Opposite Party institution. Under that circumstances, the Complainant cannot revoke that rules and regulations, until and unless the allegation of deficiency is proved. It is a settled position that, Consumer Forums are not the Courts of plenary jurisdiction, they cannot strike down the provisions of any act, rules or clauses of any lawful agreement entered into between the parties. The Complainant admittedly accepted the prospectus before joining to the Opposite Party Institution. When that being the case, the Complainant shall attend the classes regularly, clear the exams of all modules pending within one month from the date of course completion. But in the instant case, the Complainant miserably failed to establish the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that, there is no deficiency as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 12 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of January 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr.Ishwarachandra Bhat – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 26.5.2008: Web copy of Brochure of Accounts Training & Placement-ICA job guarantee.
Ex C2 – Xerox copy of Pamphlet of ICA.
Ex C3 – 22.5.2008: Communication letter of ICA.
Ex C4 – 11.4.2008: Copy of communication letter of ICA with the Complainant.
Ex C5 – 28.7.2009: External Examination Fee Form of ICA.
Ex C6 – 28.7.2008: D.D. Receipt.
Ex C7 – 28.7.2008: Acknowledgement issued by
Opposite Party No.3.
Ex C8 – 1.6.2007:Receipt bearing No.444 for a sum of Rs.22,920/-.
Ex C9 – 22.5.2008: Copy of communication from the Opposite Party and Complainant.
Ex C10– 1.6.2007: Copy of Student Personal Database Form.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW-1: Mr.Suresh Pesengi, Area Development Manager of Opposite Party No.3.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: Original letter of Authorization.
Ex.R2: Original Recognition certificate from City and Guilds Accredited Centre.
Ex R3: Original Prospects (General Rules & Regulations).
Ex R4: Student personal details-Advanced practical Accounts
Ex R5: Student personal details-Taxation.
Ex R6: Feed back (Opinion given by the students about the classes)
Dated:21.01.2011 PRESIDENT
