BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE

Dated this the 9^th August 2010

COMPLAINT NO.119/2010

(Admitted on 9.4.2010)

                                     PRESENT:    1. Smt. Asha Shetty, President.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                               2.  Smt. Lavanya M. Rai, Member.

BETWEEN:

Nagesh K.N.,

Aged 24 years,

So  Narayana,

Residing at Door No.2 353,

Akshaya, Marpalli,

Karangarapadi,

Udupi.                                                   …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Smt.Suma.R.Nayak)

          VERSUS

1.  International Business School,

     7, Kumtha Street, Near GPO,

     Opposite Hotel Windsor,

     Ballard Estate, CST,

     Mumbai 400 001.

     Represented by its

     Director Miss Surabhi.

2.  International Business School,

     Having its office at No.3/3,

     Above Reliance Fresh,

     Begur Road, Hongasandara,

     Bangalore.

     Represented by its Principal.

3.  International Business School,

     Having its office at

     “Shakti”, Pandeshwar, New Road,

     Mangalore-1

     Represented by its Manager.

     Miss Sowmya Shetty.                    ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Opposite Party No.1: Not pressed.)

(Opposite Party No.2 and 3: Exparte.)

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The Complainant submits that, he had joined for a full time Post Graduate Program in Management MBA Degree from EIILM University for the academic session starting from August 2009 to July 2011 with Opposite Party No.3.  The Opposite Party No.1 is the head office of International Business School (IBS), Opposite Party No.2 is the Bangalore office and Opposite Party No.3 is the Mangalore Office of the International Business School. 

It is stated that, at the time of admission, the Opposite Parties had represented to the Complainant that EIILM University is recognized by the UGC.  On such representation made by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant paid the first course fees on 18^th August 2009 amounting to Rs.60,000/- and paid the registration fees of Rs.10,000/- on 31.7.2009.   It is stated that, the Opposite Party No.3 at the time of admission represented that the entire institute which was being run in a house near Pandeshwar, Mangalore, would be shifted to a well equipped building in Mangalore very soon.  The Complainant being lured by representation made by the Opposite Parties with regard to 100% placements for all students joined the said institution.  It is stated that, the Complainant was given a Dell PP 38 L – made in china – Laptop, a mobile set and one set of uniform on joining the course.

It is stated that, in November 2009, the Complainant came to know that the Opposite Party has made false representation that the EIILM University was recognized by UGC.  And further submitted that, the standard of education and quality imparted by the Opposite Parties were very poor.  It is further stated that the Opposite Parties realizing that the students has come to know about the fraud, permitted some students to join other Universities and also to join other courses run by Opposite Party No.2.  The Complainant expressed his inability to go to Bangalore and join Opposite Party No.2 and also not interested in joining any other University and therefore sought for refund of fees.  It is stated that, December 2009, the IBS unit at Mangalore was closed down and only an administration office was retained  yet no fees was refunded to the Complainant and Complainant issued a legal notice  and the same has been served to the Opposite Parties, despite of that the fee paid by the Complainant was not refunded.  Hence the above Complaint is filed by the Complainant before this Forum 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 the entire fee paid by him along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by R.P.A.D.  Subsequently during the pendency of the proceedings, Complainant not pressed the Complaint as against the Opposite Party No.1.

           Opposite Party No.2 and 3 inspite of receiving version notice not appeared nor contested the case till this date.  Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.2 and 3. The Postal Acknowledgement marked as Court Document No.1 and 2.

3.      The points that arise for our consideration in this case are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

4.   In support of the complaint, Mr. Nagesh K.N. (CW1) filed his affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her.  Ex.C1 to C8 were produced for the Complainant as listed in the annexure.  Opposite Parties not led any evidence placed exparte.

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the Complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before the Forum and answered the points are as follows:   

          Point No.(i): Affirmative.

                             Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

5.  POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):

          In the instant case, the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 despite of serving version notice not appeared nor contested the case before this Forum.  On careful scrutiny of the Ex.C1 to C8 reveals that, the Complainant had joined a full time post graduate program in management and MBA degree from EIILM University for the academic session starting from August 2009 to July 2011 with the Opposite Party No.3. 

          It could be seen that, the Opposite Party No.1 is the head office of the International Business School (herein after called as “IBS”), Opposite Party No.2 is the office in Bangalore.  It is also seen that, the Complainant paid the 1^st course fee on 18^th August 2009 (as per Ex.C2) amounting to Rs.60,000/- and Rs.10,000/- paid as a registration fee on 31.7.2009 (as per Ex.C3).  The Ex.C1 i.e. the fee payment schedule issued by the Opposite Parties reveals that, the Opposite Party represented in the above said document that there institute i.e. the EIILM University is recognized by UGC.    

          The Complainant in this case filed a affidavit stating that, the Opposite Party institute is not recognized by the UGC and the Opposite Party No.3 at the time of admission represented that the entire institute which was being run in a house near Pandeshwar, Mangalore, would be shifted to a well equipped building in Mangalore and represented that 100% placements for all students.  It is stated that a DELL PP 38 L - made in chine – LAPTOP, mobile set and one set of uniform on joining the course was given.  It is also deposed before this Forum that, in November 2009, the Complainant came to know that Opposite Parties had made false representation that the EIILM University was recognized by UGC.  It is further deposed that, the Opposite Parties realizing that the students had come to know about the same permitted some students to join other universities and permitted some to join other courses run by Opposite Party No.2 and guaranteed the rest of the students refunding of fees. 

          The Complainant further deposed that, he is hailing from small town and expressed his inability to go to Bangalore and join Opposite Party No.2 and also expressed that he is not interested in joining any other university and sought for refund of fees.  By December 2009 the Opposite Party institute i.e. I.B.S. Unit at Mangalore was closed down.  The Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and personally went to Opposite Party No.3 but the Opposite Parties not refunded the fees.  

          It could be seen on record that, the entire oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence placed before this Forum by the Complainant is not controverted nor contradicted by the Opposite Parties.  In the absence of the same, we hold that, the unrebutted evidence requires no further proof. 

          However, the Complainant addressed a letter and approached the Opposite Parties before approaching this Forum also could be seen on record.  Atleast after receipt of the version notice the Opposite Parties should have appeared and contested the case.  No such attempt has been made by the Opposite Parties in this case.  In absence of any document, we are inclined to accept the assertion of the Complainant that the so called institute managed by the Opposite Parties is a bogus one and by duping innocent students like the Complainant has collected money by way of admission fees and other fees etc.  In these circumstances, we have no doubt to hold that, the Complainant must have gone through a lot of mental agony, his educational carrier is thus marred.  For this, the Complainant is definitely entitled for adequately compensated. 

          We find that, imparting of education by an educational institute for consideration falls within the ambit of ‘Service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Complainant paid fees for services to be rendered by the Opposite Parties by imparting education in this case.  If the instituted is not affiliated to recognized university, the question of continuing the admission of taking the service of the Opposite Party Institute does not arise. 

          In view of the above discussions, we hold that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally hereby directed to refund the entire fee paid by the Complainant i.e. of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy  thousand only) along with the interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till the date of payment.  In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded and further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.               

6.       In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed.  The Opposite Party No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally hereby directed to refund the entire fee paid by the Complainant i.e. of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy  thousand only) along with the interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till the date of payment and also pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation expenses.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

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 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 9^th day of August 2010.)

           PRESIDENT                                              MEMBER

ANNEXURE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:

CW1 – Mr.Nagesh K.N. – Complainant.

DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex C1 – 14.8.2009: Fee payment schedule.

Ex C2 – 18.8.2009: Receipt for payment of fees.

Ex C3 – 31.7.2009: Receipt for payment of fees.

Ex C4 – Letter issued by the Opposite Party

Ex C5 – 9.12.2009: Letter issued by the Complainant.

Ex C6 – 10.3.2010: Office copy of legal notice.

Ex C7 – Unopened envelope (4 in number).

Ex C8 – Acknowledgment card.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

-Nil-

DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

-Nil-

Dated: 09/08/2010                                       PRESIDENT