By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:

 

            The case of complainant is as follows: The complainant was a student studying for 2^nd year B.Com course. She has seen the advertisement of the respondents published in various newspapers regarding the admission of T.T.C. course conducted by the respondents. They are conducting the course under the name Dr. Ambedkar Memorial Teachers’ Training Institute at Thrissur. They are running the institute as a self financial institute. They advertised that they have approval sanction and recognition from Government of Kerala and N.C.T.E. The complainant after discontinuing the 2^nd year B.Com course joined the T.T.C. course conducted by the respondents on 30.7.2004. At the time of admission she has paid Rs.40,000/- towards the fee for the academic year 2004-05. She has continued her study in the institute from 30.7.04 to 30.9.04. After that she came to know that the course conducted by the respondents had no recognition approval and sanction from Kerala Government and N.C.T.E. authority. So she enquired about the approval of the course with the 2^nd respondent. Then the 2^nd respondent told that at present there is no approval and they are trying to get the approval. After knowing that the course conducted by the respondents has no approval the complainant met the 2^nd respondent and requested to return the Transfer Certificate and other records and Rs.40,000/- paid towards the fee. But the respondents refused to give the same. So the complainant was caused to send a lawyer notice on 1.11.04. The respondent replied the notice with false allegations. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. The counter in brief is as follows: The allegation that the respondents advertised that the institute has the approval, sanction and recognition of Kerala Government and NCTE is not correct and denied. The institute had obtained recognition and approval of the Kerala Government well before the complainant joined the course. The institute had assured that the course will get the recognition and approval from NCTE. It is not correct to say that the complainant discontinued the B.Com course in order to join the TTC course. The averment in the complaint that at the time of admission complainant had paid Rs.40,000/- towards the fee is not correct. The allegation in the complaint that the 2^nd respondent had made false representation regarding the recognition and approval is false. The respondents deny the allegations that the TTC course in the institution is unrecognized and the complainant lost one year. The institution has obtained NOC from the Government of Kerala and has completed the checking and verification for N.C.T.E. recognition. The institution had collected only Rs.10,000/- and not Rs.40,000/- as alleged by the complainant. The respondents are in no way liable to return the fee and other charges paid by the complainant. There is specific clause in the prospectus that fees once paid will not be refunded on any account. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

 

(1)   Is there any unfair trade practice committed by the respondents?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P10 and R1 to R4.

            5. The complaint is filed to get back the amount paid as fees and also compensation.

 

            6. Points: According to the complainant, she had joined the T.T.C. course conducted by the respondents and left the course in way due to non-recognition of the course. The complainant states that by seeing advertisement of the respondents in various newspapers she had joined the course. According to her, after discontinuing the 2^nd year B.Com course she joined in the respondents’ institution. She further states that at the time of admission she has paid Rs.40,000/- towards the fee for the academic year for 2004-05. She continued her study in the institute from 30.7.04 till 30.9.04. She states that during the study she came to know that the TTC course conducted by the respondents had no recognition approval and sanction from Kerala Government and NCTE authority. According to her there was false representation made by the respondents and cheated the complainant. So she has discontinued the course from 30.9.04 onwards. In the counter the respondents stated that they advertised that the institute has approval and sanction from Kerala Government and NCTE is not correct. According to them, the institute has obtained recognition and approval of the Kerala Government before the complainant joined the course. 

 

            7. According to the complainant she continued her study in the respondents’ institution from 30.7.04. As per Ext. P7 the respondents had intimated her that the course has recognition from Kerala Government and NCTE. In Ext. P7 it is also stated by the respondents that the institute is waiting for final approval from NCTE. So at the time of admission and her study the institute has no final recognition at all. As per Ext. R3 the institute has got NOC from Government of Kerala in the year 2003 itself. Ext. R1 states that the Government is pleased to accord sanction to start TTC course to the respondents’ institution by imposing certain conditions. It is dated 12.11.04 and after the discontinuance of the course by the complainant. In the Ext. P7 letter respondents stated that they are waiting for the final approval and they complied all the formalities for the same. But the complainant acted in a hurry manner and go to her study only for two months. She stated in the complaint that she has seen the advertisement of the respondents in various newspapers regarding the admission of TTC course and got recognition from Kerala Government and NCTE. But the advertisement did not produce to show that. So this version of the complainant cannot be believed. As per Ext. P7 a letter the respondent states that they are waiting for approval and did not try to hide anything from the complainant. Exts. R1 to R4 are the copy of orders from the Education Department to show the recognition. So this claim of complainant will not stand. 

 

            8. The main relief sought by the complainant is refund of Rs.40,000/- paid by her towards admission fee. In the counter the respondents contended that they have received Rs.10,000/- towards the fee and other heads. The complainant failed to produce a piece of paper to show that she had remitted Rs.40,000/- as alleged by her. So also she is not entitled to get back Rs.40,000/- as claimed. There is also no document to show that she was studying for B.Com. course. So the complainant failed to establish her case and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

            9. In the result, complaint stands dismissed.