Date of Filing: 01/10/2011

        Date of Order:30/11/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  30^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1835 OF 2011

M.B. Dinakar, S/o. M.Balakrishnan,

R/at: No.03, 2^nd Cross, 1^st Main,

Pyaru Colony, LBS-Nagar, HAL,

Bangalore-560 017.

(Rep. by Sri.N.Kiran, Advocate)                                            ….  Complainant.

V/s

1. The Institute In-Charge,

Institute of Clinical Research,

(India), No.242-A, 13^th Cross,

CMH Road, Indiranagar 2^nd Stage,

Bangalore-560 038.

2. Institute of Clinical Research (India),

New Delhi Campus: A-201, Okhla

Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020.

Kind Attn: Mr.S.K.Gupta, Director General & Dean.

(Rep. by Sri.Somashekar.J, Advocate)                              …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.4,32,000/-, are necessary:-

As per the advertisement of the opposite party the complainant sought admission for two years M.Sc. degree course in Clinical Research Programmer for the academic year 2008-2010 with the opposite party on a total fees structure of Rs.2,45,000/- + 400 GBP and paid Rs.30,000/- towards registration fare on 12.05.2008.  The complainant tried to get the eduction loan from the HDFC Bank, he could not get it.  Hence opposite party did not allow him to attend the classes and he was thrown out.  Hence the complainant took loan from his friends and relatives and paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 26.02.2009, Rs.17,000/- on 03.03.2009 and 400 GBP on 26.02.2009.  Only after paying the amount he was allowed to take up the first semester examination.  But thereafter the opposite party held a nominal examination for the complainant after collecting an additional amount of Rs.3,000/-.  The opposite party without giving details has told the complainant that he has not cleared the examination.  He was also not allowed write the supplementary examination.  The complainant learnt that the opposite party is not recognized by any body.  The complainant sought refund of the amount paid on 11.11.2009 and 24.12.2009 and sent a notice on 08.02.2010.  Another letter on 02.03.2010 and also lodged a complaint at Indiranagar police station on 23.05.2011 wherein the opposite party assured refund of the money.  Hence a notice was issued on 07.07.2011.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-

The opposite party is an institute started in 2004.  Above 2000 professionals were trained, 4000 are graduating; it has six centers all over India.  The complainant enrolled for the two years M.Sc. Degree full time course started on 26.08.2009 ends on 10^th September -2010.  It was offered in conjunction with the Institute of Clinical Research (India) and was subject to meeting the conditions of Cranfield University and the M.Sc. degree is awarded by Cranfield University. The complainant bound to attend compulsorily a minimum 75% of the lecturers held and he has to maintain the discipline and decorum, in and around the campus.  Since from beginning the complainant was very irregular for the classes and was also reprimanded several times by faculty for his lack of attendance indiscipline and his misbehavior, the opposite party has also sought his explanation.  The complainant has given several chances by providing supplementary exams and in spite of that he has not cleared the examination.  The other batch mates of the complainant by steer hardship would have completed the course and are successful in their field.  As on date there are more than 200 students in the campus at Bangalore.  The complainant is misusing the Consumer Protection Act.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases, the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents.  The arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the opposite parties are conducting M.Sc. degree in Clinical Research Programmer and on 13.05.2008 the complainant was selected for the said program and was asked to pay Rs.30,000/- towards registration fee before 17.05.2008 and to pay Rs.2,15,000/- within 15 days from the date of registration.  The complainant had paid only Rs.30,000/- regarding the registration on 12.05.2008, the course was to start from 26.08.2009. The question of allowing the complainant to attend the classes or making him out earlier to 267.08.2009 is nothing but an untruth allegation.  It is further an admitted fact that the complainant had paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 02.03.2009, Rs.17,000/- on 03.03.2009 that is before the classes commenced and he was allowed to attend the classes.  The complainant had stated that because the opposite party knocked him out he could not attend the classes, that allegation is with respect to period earlier to 26.08.2009.  Earlier to 26.08.2009 he never attended any classes because there was no classes. 

7.       It is seen from the attendance register extract the complainant had not attended the classes from 26.08.2009 regularly and he was absent, his attendance was below the minimum level prescribed.  For what reason he defaulted attending the classes? there is no answer.  For his fault he cannot blame the opposite party.  Further because of his late attendance he has been issued notice on 15.06.2009, he was reprimanded several times as seen from the record dated: 20.04.2009 his case report of September-2009.  That means the complainant himself is irregular in attending the classes and he was misbehaved in the classes. He failed in exam.  The opposite party has clearly stated that the complainant is at liberty to take up the examination again and they will provide him all necessary assistance.  Hence there cannot be any deficiency in service.

8.       The complainant wanted education, and that the opposite party is prepared to give, for which the money is taken.  It is the complainant who is negligent and deficiency in service. Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Disposed off.

2.        The opposite party is directed to provide all facility without giving any trouble to the complainant to allow him to sit for the supplementary examination for the courses in future.  No order as to costs.

3.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

4.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 30^th Day of November 2011)

MEMBER                                                 MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT