COMPLAINT FILED: 25-09-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 11-03-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 11TH MARCH 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :-SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2051/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr.C.P.Pradeep Kumar,<br /> S/o.Late Papanna,<br /> Aged about 25 years,<br /> No.33, (25/1),<br /> 5th Cross, Nanjappa Layout,<br /> Audugodi,<br /> Bangalore – 560 030.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.S.L.N.Reddy<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY International School of <br /> Business Research,<br /> No.62 B, Electronic City, <br /> Phase I, Opp. Electronic City<br /> Police Station and Post Office,<br /> Bangalore – 560 100.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.M.Bhaskar Jois<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to refund sum of Rs.3,97,500/- paid towards MBA course fee and to pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and financial loss suffered on the allegations of deficiency of services on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-<br /> <br /> 2. OP institution has called for admission to MBA course for the academic year of 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The complainant came to know that OP institution was offering a regular MBA course. At the time of issuing application OP issued a brochure which contained all the information regarding institution and course offered by them. The brochure represented that the institution is a well reputed one and the same is approved and recognized by AIU, UGC, Ministry of HRD and Government of India and that MBA offered by the institution is a regular course following a semester system. The complainant joined MBA course in the OP institution by paying total fee of Rs.3,97,500/- by availing loan from Pragathi Gramina Bank at Mulabagal Branch. OP also guaranteed 100% placement after the completion of the course. After the commencement of the course, the complainant was thoroughly dissatisfied with OP institution and the way of conducting the classes. OP institution failed to provide and fulfill the facilities and promises which were contemplated and made out in the broacher issued at the time of admission. In the month of December’ 2008 the complainant came to know that OP institution was neither recognized or approved by AIU, UGC or any other university. OP suppressed the fact that actual course pursued by the complainant is not a regular course. OP has not conducted any class or session in their institution. In the month of May’ 2009 at the time of issuing of examination hall-ticket by the OP, it was noticed that in the hall-ticket the course opted by the OP to the complainant was mentioned as a distance education programme by Annamalai University. After receiving the hall-ticket the complainant came to know that the OP has played an absolute fraud on the complainant and the entire public at large. The complainant came to know that the actual fee / cost of distance education from Annamalai university is not more than Rs.60,000/-but by playing fraud and false representation the OP has collected a sum of Rs.3,97,500/- from the complainant. After the complainant came to know the fraud played by OP, approached OP Chairman and sought for an explanation; at that point of time the complainant made to believe that OP will remit the extra fee received and directed him to write the exams. Believing the OP’s assurance and to avoid any disruption in the academic year, wrote the examination. After the first semester examination OP issued a fake markscard to the complainant. Though the complainant was dissatisfied with the approach of the OP, since he has raised a loan to fulfill the OP requirements, forced to accept the representation made by the OP. The complainant sent legal notice dated 13-07-2009 calling upon OP to pay sum of Rs.3,97,500/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, OP instead of complying the demand sent an untenable reply notice dated 30-07-2009 hence the complainant seeking necessary reliefs. The complainant produced documents with lists. <br /> <br /> 3. OP on appearance filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act and there is no deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. It is stated that complainant is well aware of OP institution; he has obtained the prospectus for admission to MBA course. In the application for admission it is clearly indicated that 2 year MBA course is conducted by Sikkim Manipal university /Bharathi Programme of Annamalai University, Recognized by UGC, AIU approved by Ministry of HRD and Government of India under directorate of Distance Education. The complainant having knowledge of all the above contents has signed application and got admitted to 2 year MBA course and completed. The complainant has signed the declaration on 24-07-2009 after having accepted the condition and contents of the course offered and the university under which the course is offered and being aware of all the facts and contents of the prospectus and brochure and application forms joined the OP institution and had completed the course. The complainant after having satisfied, joined the course and completed and having kept quite till completion now raise the issue, as to harass the OP and the complainant want to take a chance of utilizing the Forum, a channel to enrich himself although the MBA course over. At the time of admission the complainant was given fee structure for Annamalai University, MBA program July’ 2007 – 2009 batch (2 Years) 4 semester. The Options offered were to pay either in lump sum for first and second year or to avail the benefit of deferred payment in four installments commencing from 10th August’ 2008. The OP never mis-represented either in respect of fee charged or in respect to placement. The complainant was called for an interview in 9 companies. In the first year 9 subjects were taught, OP has maintained the percentage of attendance. The complainant’s attendance in some subjects in the first year is more than 90%, least being in PDCL-1 at 71%. In the second year in the nine subject that were taught, the percentage of attendance of complainant declined, the highest being Corporate finance at 67% and lowest in PDCL-2 at 0%. The legal notice issued by complainant is duly replied. It is denied that OP has played fraud. The complainant having accepted the terms and conditions and completed the course by paying prescribed fee and later filled the complaint in this Forum. The very complaint is not maintainable at all and no deficiency in service arise. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.<br /> <br /> OP produced documents with list. <br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments complainant filed affidavit evidence. Chairman of the OP filed affidavit in support of defence version and produced documents. <br /> <br /> 5. The complainant and OP filed written arguments; the complainant filed reply arguments to OP arguments. Op filed re-joinder to reply arguments.<br /> <br /> 6. After going through the pleadings the documents produced, affidavit evidence, written arguments filed and after hearing on both sides, the points that arise for our consideration are:-<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 7. We record our findings on the above points are:-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant being a BE Graduate from VTU took admission for MBA program offered by Annamalai university under Directorate of distance education for the academic year 2007-2008, 2008-20009 through OP institution by paying total fee of Rs.3,97,500/-. The complainant passed 2 years MBA distance Education from Annamalai university; he has passed first year MBA examination held in May’ 2008 and second year MBA examination held in May’2009. It is contended for the complainant that in the brochure issued by OP with regard to MBA course, it is said that it is a regular course following a semester system and further that OP institution has been shown, as if recognized by AIU, UGC, Ministry of HRD, Government of India. Infact OP institution is not recognized institution; Annamalai University has not authorized OP institution to issue admission application and to collect the fees. Infact the MBA offered by Annamalai University under its Directorate of Distance Education prescribed a total fee of not more than Rs.30,000/- for 2 years but the OP has illegally collected an amount of Rs.3,97,500/-from the complainant. The complainant believing the contents of the prospectus and promises made by the OP joined the course and paid the entire fee. OP played fraud by indulging in unfair trade practice by misleading the complainant; as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 9. As per the complaint averments, in the month of December’2008 the complainant came to know that OP institution was neither recognized nor approved by AIU, UGC or any other university. It has come to the knowledge of the complainant that at the time of admission OP represented that the MBA course persued by complainant is a regular course as against a distance education or correspondence course. Further it is stated that in the month of May’ 2009 at the time of issuing examination hall ticket by the OP it was noticed that in the hall ticket the course opted by the OP to the complainant is mentioned as a distance education program introduced by Annamalai university. <br /> <br /> As against this it is contended for the OP that the complainant after going through the entire contents of the brochure with regard to MBA has taken admission for the distance education MBA offered by Annamalai University; he has filled the application after going through the contents of the same, and signed declaration having accepted the conditions and contents of the course offered and the university under which the course is offered, joined OP institution and completed the course without whispering anything against the OP institution.<br /> <br /> The cover page of the prospectus/brochure for the year 2007-2009 issued by OP institution contains that international school of business and research (ISBR) fully approved and recognized by AIU, UGC, Ministry of HRD, Government of India. In case if only the cover page contents are taken without going through the entire contents of the prospectus, one can certainly say that it is a misleading statement as OP institution has not been approved and recognized by AIU, UGC, Ministry of HRD, Government of India. It cannot be said that complainant took admission for MBA only after seeing the front cover page of the prospects believing that OP institution is a recognized institution conducting regular MBA course. Document No.2 produced by the OP is an application form filled by the complainant for Annamalai University. In this application it is clearly mentioned that the directorate of distance education in collaboration with Bharati Resources Pvt. Ltd. The complainant has filled up this form and he has selected marketing and human resource as a specialization subject. It is not his case that without knowing the contents, this application has been signed. So it becomes clear that at the time of filling admission application the complainant was aware of the fact, that he is seeking admission to MBA course offered by Annamalai University under directorate of distance education. Document No.3 is ISBR application form filled up by the complainant with regard to management program, by giving declaration as under:<br /> I consent to under go the two years MBA program of Sikkim Manipal University /Bharati Program of Annamalai University recognized by UGC, AIU, approved by Ministry of HRD and Government of India under directorate of distance education along with Autonomous industry integrated post graduate program from international school of business and research Bangalore for the year 2007-2009. The complainant has made further declaration as under:<br /> I am fully aware that I have to complete the full time Campus based ISBR’s Post Graduate Program in Management (PGPM) which is an antonomous Program, along with Bharathi Resources Learning Center (BRLC) MBA (Business Application) of Annamalai University which is approved by Directorate of distance education with compulsory contact classes. From this declaration it becomes clear that the complainant was aware of the fact that the MBA course offered was under Directorate of distance education by Annamalai University. <br /> <br /> After going through this declaration made by the complainant and the admission application filled we are of the view that the complainant was fully aware of the fact that he is taking admission for MBA program conducted under Directorate of distance education of Annamalai Univeristy. It cannot be said that OP institution was not authorized to conduct classes regarding MBA program of distance education of Annamalai Univeristy. OP has produced copy of the Annamalai University website containing the details of distance education program of Annamalai University in collaboration with Centum Learning Ltd. The Centum Learning Center are shown in the same. The OP institution is one of these Centum Learning Center for distance education of Annamalai Univeristy, as such OP is a authorized learning Center to conduct MBA Program of Annamalai University.<br /> <br /> Document No.1 prospectus of OP with regard to program offered – MBA- Master of business administrative from Annamalai University (Recognized by AIU, UGC, Ministry of HRD, Government of India) further it shows that 2 years MBA program is offered by Annamalai University which is fully approved and recognized by UGC, AIU, Ministry of HRD and Government of India directorate of Distance Education. Further it is shown that the student successfully completing this program will get recognized MBA degree from Annamalai University. The student will also get full time industry recognized diploma from ISBR. The complainant after going through this program offered as shown at Page 20 filled up application for admission issued by Annamalai University. After going through the entire contents of the prospectus it is difficult to accept that OP by mis-representation made the complainant to complete the MBA course offered as a regular course from that institution. OP has produced the time table schedule, the details of guest lectures held, faculty details for the batch 2007-2009, class attendance sheets, attendance for workshops, test, training and guest lectures, the details of Library books borrowed by the complainant, the examination result of May’2008 & may’ 2009, PGPM- statement of Grade I, II, III Semesters. All these documents produced clearly goes to show that the complainant has attended the classes and utilized the library of OP institution. <br /> <br /> The fee structure of Annamalai University produced at Document No.5 provides options either to pay entire amount in one lumsum or to pay in installments, the fee prescribed for the course offered. The contention that the fee prescribed for distance education MBA program of Annamalai University is not more than Rs.60,000/- but OP by playing fraud and misrepresentation collected sum of Rs.3,97,500/- cannot be accepted, for the reason that OP has provided all infrastructure facilities in the institution by conducting classes for the students undertaking MBA program. We are unable to hold that OP was not justified in collecting that much of amount. In case if the complainant was not willing to pay fee prescribed, there was no any compulsion for him to get admission in the OP institution. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Reliance was based on the principles laid down in I (2008) CPJ Page 175 Rai University Vs. Hariprasad N.V. and others, IV (2009) CPJ Page 101Shashi Vs. Surender Kumar and I (1993) CPJ Page 9 Apeejay School and Vs.M.K.Sangal and others in support of the contention that OP institution being not a recognized and approved institution of any university made the complainant to take admission for MBA course as such the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. In our view after going through Page 20 of the broacher it becomes clear that at the time of the admission the complainant was well aware of the fact that he is seeking admission for MBA program offered under directorate of distance education center of Annamalai University. In the broacher only on the cover page it is mentioned as OP institution is fully approved and recognized by AIU, UGC, Ministry of HRD, Government of India, but at Page 20 it is clearly mentioned that the MBA program offered is by Annamalai University through distance education. Hence the principles laid down in the above rulings cannot be made applicable in support of the claim made by the complainant. <br /> <br /> The complainant has produced marks sheet at Sl. No.6 of the document produced. It is contended that this marks sheet is a fake marks sheet issued by OP institution. As against this it is contended for the OP that this marks sheet relates to the internal examination conducted by the institution. The same was issued to enable the complainant to avail the Bank loan for paying the required fee of the institution. In our view it appears that the OP institution by conducting internal examination as semester wise has assessed the capacity of students; with regard to the same the marks sheets are issued. Therefore it cannot be said the fake marks sheet is issued to the complainant. <br /> <br /> It is contended for the complainant that at the time of admission OP assured 100% placement after completion of MBA course but complainant has not been provided any placement, OP has given false assurance only to collect huge sum of amount towards the fee. In our view OP has produced Document No.20 which goes to show that the complainant has participated in the interviews of the placement, as his performance was not up to the mark he was not given placement. Document No.18 is the requisite form by the complainant requesting for placement assistance. OP has provided the required facilities for placement to appear for the interviews. It is difficult to accept that without the expected performance in the interviews; the OP institution has assured placement after completion of the course. <br /> <br /> It is contended for the complainant that in the written arguments submitted by OP it is admitted that the cover page of the brochure is in correct, misleading as it is stated that “do not judge a book by its jacket”. It is contended that OP by mentioning on the cover page of the prospectus as it is an approved and recognized by AIU, UGC Ministry of HRD, Government of India has mislead the complainant for taking admission for MBA course. In our view in the written arguments submitted by OP it is stated that “do not judge a book by its jacket”. Read the book to comprehend it’. From this it cannot be said that OP is admitting that the cover page of brochure is incorrect, misleading but as it is stated to read entire brochure to know the details of the course offered. The complainant after going through the entire contents of the brochure knowing fully well he is taking admission for MBA course offered by Annamalai University through directorate of distance education filled up the application form for admission and has given consent to undergo MBA program. He has utilized all the facilities provided by OP institution and has completed the course. Under these circumstances we are unable to accept that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the OP institution. The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed. The complaint is devoid of merits; the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. In view of nature of dispute no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of February 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> NRS<br /> <br />