BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 19.05.2016 Date of Order : 25.06.2020

PRESENT:

Shri. V.S.Manulal (President-in-charge) .

Shri. V. Ramachandran Member

Smt.Sreevidhia T.N. Member

CC.No.293/2016

Between

O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant Sri. Rony Thomson Baby stated in his complaint that the opposite parties had published advertisements in the newspapers offering Petroleum Engineering Course in the college namely Adsumilly Vijaya College, Hyderabad owned by them. On seeing the advertisement, the complainant approached the office of the opposite party at Kochi. He has given the prospectus showing that the 1^st opposite party as the Chairman of the institution and other opposite party as Director. On enquiry regarding the recognition of the college by the statutory authorities, it was assured that course offered by them was recognized by the AICTE and the University of Hyderabad. Believing the promise and assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant had paid Rs.11,000/- on 12.06.2013 towards admission fees. Thereafter the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- towards the heads of admission fees on 12.07.2013. The complainant further paid Rs.11,633/- on 30.10.2014 towards the 2^nd year fees. The opposite party also collected Rs. 1,25,000/- on 17.08.2013. Altogether the opposite party had collected Rs.2,67,333/- from the complainant. The opposite party had given fee structure of Rs. 6 lakh for the entire course period. That includes Rs.1 lakh donation and Rs.5 lakh towards fees for four years, including tuition fees hostel fees and mess fees. On reaching Hyderabad, the complainant came to know that the owner of the college mentioned in the brochure as one Mr. Prasad. The 1^st opposite party was not the chairman of the college and the other opposite parties were not the Directors of the college as described in the brochure. It is submitted that Mr. Prasad was running the college. There were no offered facilities available at Hyderabad. The college and the so called hostel were functioning in a small congested building. The complainant stated that the 1^st year course was completed. In the meantime admission for the fresh batch was done. But the affiliation of the 2^nd batch was denied by the University. Hence the fresh batch students submitted complaints before the Thevara Police Station. As per the complaints, the opposite parties were arrested by the police and they were remanded to judicial custody by the Court. As a result of that the regular classes were stopped due to the difference of opinion erupted between the opposite parties and Mr. Prasad who was the original owner of the College. The complainant is now compelled to continue the studies without attending any class and now solely depending on online facilities for studies. The complainant was also compelled to pay huge amount to Sri.Prasad to attend the examination and thereby put to irreparable hardships and difficulties. The act of the opposite party offering courses and best quality education facilities by misrepresenting that they are running the college which they are not actually running, thereby causing great hardships, financial loss and mental agony which amounts to unfair trade practice. Due to the stopping of regular classes, the complainant lost top valuable years due to the abrupt stopping of the regular classes. The future prospectus in life has been spoiled due to the unfair trade practice of the opposite party. Hence the complainant filed complaint seeking direction to be given to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (5 lakh) towards compensation to the complainant for the mental agony, financial loss and hardships suffered by the complainant.

2) Eventhough notices were served by the Forum, the postal authorities returned the notices without delivering to the opposite parties stating ‘not known’. The complainant filed I.A 318/17 for removing the opposite parties 3 and 4 from the party array. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have neither appeared nor filed their version.

3) The evidence in this case consisted of the documentary evidence adduced by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 and A2 series. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties.

4) The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

2. If so, whether the complainant is eligible to get any compensation from the opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get cost of the proceedings from the opposite parties?

5) Issue No. (i)

We have examined the matter in detail with regards to the records and documents filed by the complainant. On verification of Exbt.A1 produced by the complainant, it can be seen that the opposite parties had given releases of advertisements by publishing booklets stating that Adsumilly Vijaya is a College of Engineering and Research Centre and is an institution of Technology and Research Centre approved by AICTE, New Delhi and is affiliated to JNTU Hyderabad. It can be seen on the pages of the booklets that the Chairman of the institution as Sri. Jayesh Jayakumar is the Chairman of the institution who is arrayed as the 1^st opposite party by the complainant in the petition. A very beautiful picture of a building with a very spacious outlook can be seen given in the brochure. Messages of the Pro-Chairman and the photographs of team of office bearers are also seen given in the brochure. The averments of the complainant is that there is no such facility or building existing as offered by the opposite party is to be taken into account at this stage. Further as per Exbt.A2 the receipt bearing No.451 dated 12.07.2013 sealed and signed by the opposite party where it can be seen that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.15000/- to the opposite party. Further again on 18.06.2013 as per receipt No.413 the complainant had paid total of Rs.11000/- and Rs.1,16,333/- vide Receipt No.031 dated 30.10.2014, Rs.1,25,000/- vide Receipt No. 042 dated 17.08.2013 and thus a total amount of Rs.2,67,133/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party. The opposite parties where given notice by this Forum and they did not turn up to contest this case. The deliberate absence of the opposite party in appearing before the Forum and filing the version and defending the case amounts to admission of the allegations framed by the complainant. The complainant had stated that he has lost two valuable years in his academic course. There is no material evidence to disbelieve the averments put forward by the complainant and that the other allegations can also be taken into account on circumstantial grounds. In this circumstances, we are of the opinion that the averments made by the complainant is proved beyond doubt and the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party is to be returned with interest. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed as follows.

6) In the result we allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.2,67,133/- to the complainant which is being the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite parties.

2. The opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the above amounts shall carry 12% interest from 31^st day of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of June 2020.

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

V.S.Manulal (President-in-charge)

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., (Member)

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits: Nil

Date of Despatch ::

By Hand ::

By Post ::

…................