KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OP:36/02 JUDGMENT DATED:5..10..2007 PRESENT SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN :MEMBER Joshi.V. Karickanal, Karickanal House, : COMPLAINANT Manjoor.P.O, Kottayam. (By Adv: M/s Kavitha.D & Sindhu Radhakrishnan) V. 1. Dr.Radhakrishnan, Director, NSS Union College, Manakkapadi, North Paravur, Ernakulam. 2. Secretary, NSS Union College, Manakkapadi, North Paravoor, Ernakulam. : OPPOSITE PARTIES 3. Principal, NSS Union College, Manakkapadi, North Paraoor, Ernakulam. 4. Rajan, Vice Principal, NSS Union College, Manakkapadi, North Paravoor, Ernakulam. (By Adv: Sri.P.J.Santhosh) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The complaint in this OP is filed claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- and also for getting refund of Rs.1,73,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/-, on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4. 2.The allegations in the complaint are as follows:- Complainant joined MSc(I.T.) course with admission No:632 in the college by name NSS Union College, North Paravur, Ernakulam. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are the Director, Secretary, Principal and Vice Principal respectively of the said NSS Union College, North Paravur, Ernakulam. The complainant joined in the aforesaid MSc (I.T) course on the basis of the advertisements effected by the opposite parties through television, leading daily newspapers and other media. The 1st opposite party in his capacity as Director of NSS Union College issued a prospectus with the details regarding imparting training and coaching for students to enable them to become qualified degree or post graduate degree holders. The 1st opposite party informed the complainant that the NSS Union College is having recognition and affiliation to Madurai Kamaraj and Alagappa Universities. The advertisements effected by the opposite parties created the impressions that degree classes, MCA, MSc(IT), MBA and other regular courses are being conducted at their NSS Union College that their college itself will be an examination centre that the complainant and their students were made believe that they can appear for the University examinations at the NSS Union College itself. The very name NSS union college is a misleading one so as to create an impression that the college is run by the reputed society.. The opposite parties obtained a sum of Rs.1,15,530/- under various heads from the complainant ie. Capitation fee : Rs.30,000/- Admission fee : Rs.20,000/- Tuition fee(for 3 semesters): Rs.30,000/- Registration fee : Rs.15,530/- Cost of study materials : Rs.10,000/- Miscellaneous : Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- 3. But the hostel facility provided by the opposite parties were not up to the standard; but with much inconvenience and difficulties the complainant continued her stay in the said hostel hoping that she can secure MSc (IT) degree. At the end of the first year of the MSc(IT) course the 1st opposite party informed the complainant and other students that they have to go to Chennai for the University examination and further informed that the examination is scheduled from 23..10..01 at Chennai and that all the 17 students of MSc(IT) course have to start by 17..10..2001. It is also then came to the knowledge of the complainant that the said NSS Union College is only imparting training under the Distant Education Scheme of Alagappa University. The 1st opposite party also demanded fee for the next year and the complainant paid Rs.5000/- as half of the fee for one semester. It is also then understood that the identity card of herself and other 5 candidates were not received and that without the identity card, hall tickets for the examination will not be issued from the university. When the complainant and the other students contacted the 3rd opposite party, Principal of the NSS Union College, he gave assurance that the hall tickets could be arranged as soon as the students are arrived at Chennai. On the said assurance the complainant and 5 others reached Chennai and stayed there; but they were not given the hall tickets till 22..10..01. The complainant and others had to undergo severe mental pressure and agony. The 1st opposite party again gave the assurance that by all means he would arrange for the Hall tickets and the same will be issued on reaching the examination centre on 23..10..2001. But on 23..10..01 morning it was informed by the 1st opposite party that the complainant and other 5 students could not appear for the examination for want of their registration with the university. On enquiry at the university, it was informed that the complainant and the other 5 students did not remit the prescribed fee at the university for registration. First opposite party had assured the complainant that her name will be registered in the University for getting eligibility to appear for the examination. In fact the complainant had remitted the registration fee by getting demand draft for Rs.15,530/-. But the opposite parties failed to send the said DD to the University for registration and also towards examination fee. The failure on the part f the opposite parties resulted in non registration of the name of the complainant and others in the University. The complainant approached the opposite parties a number of times to get back the said DD; but the same is kept by the opposite parties. The complainant subsequently issued an Advocate notice dated:8..1..2001 to the opposite parties and that the opposite parties issued a reply notice dated:30..1..2002 stating untenable contentions. There were 18 students for the MSc (IT) course. But unfortunately the complainant and 5 other students could not appear for the examination so the complainant discontinued their studies in the opposite parties NSS Union College. The opposite parties as a retaliatory measurement filed a suit for money against the complainant before the Munsiff Court, North Paravur. But the opposite parties had no cause of action against the complainant to get any relief. The willful negligence and irresponsible acts of the opposite parties have caused immense and terrible mental pressure, mental agony, hardship and financial loss to the complainant. The opposite parties have failed to render the services as offered and promised by them. The complainant is entitled to get back the entire amount of Rs.1,06,800/-. which was collected by the opposite parties. She is also entitled to get back Rs.15,000/- which she spent towards mess fees and hostel expenses. She has also incurred an expense of Rs.5000/- for her journey and stay at Chennai. Complainant had also incurred other expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. .for purchasing necessary books and for traveling. The complainant is entitled to get the aforesaid amounts from the opposite parties with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 17..10..2001 onwards. In addition to the above said amounts complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for depriving her one whole academic year and for the difficulties, inconvenience and hardships. Thus, the complainant prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,73,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and also for a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/-. 4. Notice of the complaint in the above OP was served on the opposite parties and they entered appearance. The 3rd opposite party filed written version on behalf of himself and on behalf of the other opposite parties contending mainly as follows:- 5. The opposite parties are the Director, Secretary, Principal and Vice Principal of NSS Union College, North Paravur, Ernakulam; that the said college is an institution sponsored by Nair Seva Samithi Union College and Educational Charitable Research Trust, North Paravur. The said educational institution imparts training and coaching to students for various degree, diploma and post graduate courses for various universities including Madurai Kamaraj University and Alagappa University. The NSS Union College is having the approval to conduct various courses of the Alagappa University and the said college has been approved by the letter dated:29..6..2000 issued by “SITECH” which is an IT division of Mohammed Sathak Trust having its main office at Nungambakkam, High road, Chennai. The SITECH is the authority to grant approval to conduct various courses of Alagappa University. On the strength of the said approval the opposite parties started to give admission to various courses of Alagappa University including MSc (IT). The complainant was admitted for the said MSc IT course. The complainant filled up the application form of the NSS Union College as per the prospectus of the institute. It is mandatory for the students to get themselves registered with the University and for that the students have to fill up the application form of the University and to send the same directly to the University with the required registration fee. The University insists that the candidates should themselves send the application form and other fees due to the university directly. The allegation in the complaint that the opposite parties by the advertisement created an impression that regular degree classes are being given at the NSS Union College is not correct. The complainant who is a graduate was aware of the fact that regular classes out of the local jurisdiction of the University can conduct only through distant education programmes. The application form and the declaration signed and submitted by the complainant would make it clear that the NSS Union College is sponsored by NSSUC & ECR Trust (Nair Seva Samithi Union College and Educational Charitable Research Trust). There was no room for doubting the name of the institution. All the fee details were given vide separate annexure to the prospectus. The opposite party had never undertaken to register the name of the complainant with the university because as per rules the candidate has to register himself directly with the university by paying the registration fee by demand draft in the name of Registrar, Alagappa University. It is made clear in the prospectus issued to the complainant along with the registration form of the university. The opposite parties had time and again informed about themselves to the students through notices in the notice board as well as by reading the same in classes. NSS Union College is an approved centre of examination. It is the University who is the authority to decide about the conducting of examination. The opposite parties have never stated that examination will be conducted only at their institute. The allegation that sum of Rs.30,000/- was obtained as capitation fee is an utter falsehood. No such amount has ever been demanded or obtained by the opposite parties. On 17..10..2001 the complainant has paid only Rs.5000/- though she had to pay Rs.20,000/- as fee for two semesters. The statement that the complainant has paid Rs.30,000/- as fee for three semesters is also false. The other allegation that the complainant paid Rs.15,530/- as registration fee is also false. It is the authority of the university to decide the centre for examination and the opposite parties have nothing to do with the decision to approve the centre of the examination. The application form filled up by the complainant would make it clear that the course offered is under the Distant Education Scheme of Alagappa University. The application form issued by the University would make it clear that it is issued by Directorate of Distant Education. It is understood that the complainant had taken up the demand draft in the name of the Director, Directorate of Distant Education, instead of Registrar, Alagappa University and that is the reason the demand draft was returned to the complainant and she could not write the examination. The opposite parties could not be blamed for the fault on the part of the complainant. The opposite parties have not played any unfair trade practice. The opposite parties have filed a suit before the Hon’ble Munsiff Court, North Paravur for recovery of money as the complainant is legally liable to pay the suit amount to the opposite parties. In fact the present complaint can be considered as a counter blast in view of the suit filed against the complainant. The complainant could have filed a counter claim before the Civil Curt instead of filing the present complaint. The present complaint is filed as a test case and the complainant is not entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the present complaint. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the case of the complainant regarding unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties can be upheld? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.1,73,000/- and a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- as claimed in the complaint? 3. What is the order as to cost? 6. The opposite parties entered appearance through Adv.Kappillil Anilkumar subsequently a fresh vakalath was filed for the opposite parties by Adv.P.J.Santhosh with no objection certificate dated:20..11..2002 issued by Adv.Kappillil Anilkumar. The opposite parties filed preliminary objection dated:13..6..2002 through 3rd opposite party disputing the maintainability of the complaint in OP:36/02 on the ground that Civil suit is pending before the Munsiff Court, North Paravur as OS:114/02 and that the cause of action, the subject matter and the parties in the suit and in the present complaint are one and the same and that the present complaint is to be treated as a parallel proceeding. Thus, the opposite parties requested for dismissal of the complaint in OP:34/02 on the ground that the complaint in this OP is not maintainable. The complainant filed objection to the aforesaid preliminary objection and this State Commission after hearing both sides passed a common order in OP:34/02, OP:35/02 and OP:38/02 regarding the maintainability of the present complaint and the other complaints filed in the other OP:35/02 and OP:38/02 by the aforesaid common order dated 17..1..2003 this commission has found the above complaints as maintainable. It is also held in the said order that the opposite parties are at liberty to contend before this commission that complaints are not entertainable at the time of the final hearing. 7. After the filing of the preliminary objection the opposite parties filed version dated:20..12..2002. There after there was no representation for the opposite parties and they were declared exparte. The opposite parties filed I.A.970/03 to review the order declaring the opposite parties exparte and also to setaside the exparte order. The aforesaid I.A. was filed on 3..9..2003 and the said I.A.970/03 was dismissed on 10..10..2003 for default. The opposite parties then filed another petition dated 10..11..2003 to get the order dated:10..10..2003 reviewed. But the aforesaid review application was dismissed by this commission vide order dated:10..11..2003 stating that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended by Act 2002 to review the order passed by this state commission. Thus, the opposite parties remained exparte in the proceedings. The opposite parties along with the written version filed seven documents as enclosures 1 to 7. 8. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 (chief examination) and the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A10. The opposite parties along with the written version filed the documents with list of documents viz. 1. Photocopy of the application submitted by the complainant in the prescribed application form of NSS Union College for admission to MSc (IT Course) with the photocopy of the declaration signed by the complainant. 2. Photocopy of the notice dated:20..9..2000 issued by the Principal, NSS Union College to all students of MSc (IT course). 3. Photocopy of the notice dated:8..6..2001 issued by the principal, NSS Union College to all MSc (IT students). 4. Photocopy of the plaint in OS:114/02 filed by NSS Union College as plaintiff against the complainant as defendant before the Munsiff Court, North Paraur. 9. Eventhough in the version filed by the opposite parties it is stated that the prospectus of Alagappa University etc are attached as enclosures no such prospectus of Alagappa University etc are seen enclosed or attached as stated in the written version. 10. We heard the counsel for the complainant and amicus curiae. Opposite parties remained exparte. The learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted argument notes. Learned counsel for the complainant relied on Ext.A7 prospectus of the NSS Union College issued by the opposite parties and the other documentary evidence adduced from the side of the complainant, in OP:34/2002 to prove her case regarding payment of fees by the complainant to the opposite parties in connection with her admission to the MSc(IT course). She vehemently argued for the position that there was unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in imparting training and coaching for MSc (IT Course) and also unfair trade practice and deficiency of service in getting the name of the complainant registered with Alagappa University. Thus, the complainant prayed for allowing the complaint in OP:36/02. POINTS 1 TO 3 The fact that the complainant was admitted in NSS Union College, north Paravur for MSc (IT Course) is not in dispute. There is also no dispute that the opposite parties 1 to 4 are the Director, Secretary, Principal and Vice Principal of the NSS Union College, North Paravur. The case of the complainant is that she was mis-led by the opposite parties by the advertisements and the offers made by the opposite parties; that the opposite parties failed to fulfill the promise and assurance made by the opposite parties at the time of her admission to MSc (IT Course). It is the definite case of the complainant that on account of the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service she could not appear for the examination for MSc (IT PG Degree) conducted by the Alagappa University. The complainant has levelled so many allegation against the opposite parties. We will consider the correctness of those allegations one by one. 12. It is alleged by the complainant in paragraph 2 of the complaint that the name NSS Union College itself is a misleading one and the very name would cause a feeling in the minds of the people that the NSS Union College is one under the “Society” which have numerous reputed institutions especially educational institutions through out this state. The prospectus issued by the opposite parties is also very vague. According to the complainant by the name of the institution as NSS Union College would create an impression that the institution is run by Nair Service Society (NSS). The prospectus issued by the NSS union college is marked as Ext.A7 on the side of the complainant in OP:34/02. The opposite parties have also produced the very same prospectus along with the written version Ext.A7 prospectus and the prospectus produced from the side of the opposite parties are identical in all respects except the last page attached to the prospectus produced from the side of the opposite parties. A7 prospectus is having the pages up to 24 excluding the cover pages but the prospectus produced from the side of the opposite parties is having one more leaf with page Nos:25 and 26. The pages 25 contains the application form for admission and the reverse side of that application form is page 26 containing the declaration to be signed by the students. A perusal of A7 prospectus would make it clear that the aforesaid last leaf containing pages 25 and 26 have been detached. The complainant in her affidavit admitted the fact that the application form for admission was submitted by her with her signature. The opposite parties have produced photocopy of that application form submitted by the complainant. The opposite parties have also produced photocopy of the declaration said to have been signed and submitted by the complainant. But the complainant has denied the signing and submission of such a declaration. It is to be noted that the application form for admission and the declaration are one and the same sheet (leaf) which was attached to the prospectus. The application form which is attached to the prospectus produced from the side of the opposite parties would make this position very clear. In the aforesaid declaration form itself it is specifically stated as declaration No:9 as follows:- “I know that I have joined the college after knowing the complete details of the College and the course and I know very well that the college is sponsored by NSSUC & ECR TRUST (Nair Seva Samithi Union College and Educational Charitable Research Trust), N. Paravur. I am very clear about the recognition of the course and College, as per the Prospectus. I understood fully that the course is recognized by University/Deemed University, approved UGC & AIU.” 13. The above stated condition incorporated in the declaration which is printed on the reverse side of the application for admission would make it clear that the NSS stands for Nair Seva Samithi. There was no occasion or chance for the complainant to have a mistaken impression that the aforesaid educational institution by name NSS Union College is run or sponsored by Nair Service Society (NSS). It is further made clear at page 24 of the prospectus in the head note “please note”. It is written as note no:3 that the college is sponsored by Nair Seva Samithi Union College and Educational Charitable Research Trust and which is having no relationship with any other similar organization. The trust is purely charitable and secular and admit students without considering cast, creed and religion. This note is printed at page 24 of A11 prospectus also. So the allegation regarding the name NSS Union adopted by the opposite parties in naming their institution cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the opposite parties have played unfair trade practice. 14. The complainant has got another allegation regarding the recognition of the MSc( IT course) of the Alagappa University. It is also alleged that the opposite parties made the complainant and her parents to believe that the MSc IT course is being conducted as a regular course under the Alagappa University, but only subsequently at the end of the first year the complainant came to know that the education being imparted by the opposite parties under the distant education scheme of Alagappa University. A perusal of Ext.A7 prospectus would make it clear that the opposite parties NSS union College have got recognition to conduct various courses recognized by various universities including Alagappa University. It is not stated that the NSS Union College is affiliated to any of the university but in clear terms it is specifically stated that the training and coaching imparted for various courses are recognized by universities like Madurai Kamaraj University, Alagappa University etc. At page 17 of Ext.A7 prospectus it is specifically stated that the said course is recognized post graduate degree in Information Technology. The name of the university is shown as Alagappa. More over, at page 23 under the heading Scheme (DE) it is narrated about the distant education provided to persons of all age and sex, working or non working. It is also made clear that distant education students are treated at par with regular university and college students in matters of admission to higher courses and in the award of degrees. It is further stated that the duration of the degree through distant education course should be same as for regular course. The aforesaid specifications or narrations are made by quoting UGC manual. Another important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the production of application for admission issued by Alagappa University, Directorate of Distant Education. This application for admission is produced by the opposite parties along with their written version. There can be no doubt that this application is to be submitted with the signature of the candidate for getting his or her name registered with the Alagappa University under the Directorate of Distant Education. The complainant has no case that she has not submitted an application for admission in the Alagappa University for the MSc (IT course). There can be no doubt about the fact that the complainant’s name could be registered only by submitting such an application duly filled up by affixing the signature of the concerned student. The aforesaid application for admission would make it abundantly clear that the name of the complainant can only be registered with the Alagappa University for MSc (IT course) by submitting the aforesaid application for admission. This application form would speak volumes that the complainant’s name can only be registered with Alagappa University under the distant education scheme. So, there is no basis for the allegation that the complainant joined for the MSc (IT course) in NSS Union College under the belief that the said course is a regular course under Alagappa University. The materials on record would also make it clear that the NSS union college was only a recognized educational institution for conducting the said course namely MSc (IT course) under Alagappa university. It is to be noted that recognition of educational institution for imparting training and coaching for a particular course in a particular university is entirely different from getting affiliation for that educational institution from a particular university. In the present case the complainant joined for the MSc (IT course) in NSS union college which is having the recognition of Alagappa University to conduct such a course by imparting training and coaching to the students who are admitted for the said course in NSS Union college. We have no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties have not played any unfair trade practice in providing admission to the complainant for MSc (IT course). 15. Another case put forward by the complainant is the assurance given by the opposite parties in providing examination centre at the NSS Union college itself and subsequently at the end of the year the complainant and other students of MSc (IT Course) were informed that they have to write the examinations at Chennai. A11 prospectus produced and marked in OP:34/02 would give a clear indication that the NSS union college is recognized as an examination centre and study centre to conduct theory and practical classes. Clause 10 of (at page 7) Ext.A11 prospectus would make it clear that NSS Union College is recognized as an examination centre. The aforesaid recital or offer made in A11 prospectus would create a clear impression in the mind of a man of ordinary prudence that the students who are studying in NSS Union college can write their university examinations at the NSS union college. In otherwords, the opposite parties made the students to believe that NSS Union college will be the centre for their examinations. The present case of the opposite parties that the NSS union college is a recognized centre for examination but that does not mean that the university will allot examination centre at NSS union college. The aforesaid interpretation or explanation offered by the opposite parties cannot be accepted as such. No such explanation or interpretation can be inferred from the recitals in A11 prospectus. Otherwise, the conditions stipulated in A11 prospectus would only show that NSS union college is recognized as an examination centre by the university and the students who are studying in NSS union college can write their examinations at their own educational institution namely, NSS union college, North Paravur. It was incumbent upon the opposite parties to make it clear in A11 prospectus itself that the allotment of examination centre is the discretion of the concerned university. So, the case of the complainant that she was made to believe by the opposite parties and that she was under the strong belief that by studying or joining in NSS union college for MSc (IT course) of Alagappa University she can write her examination at NSS Union College itself is to be accepted. 16. There is nothing on record to support or substantiate the case of the opposite parties that NSS Union college is recognized by Alagappa university as an examination centre for MSc (IT course) or for any other course under Alagappa University. The opposite parties have relied on the photocopy of the letter dated July 20, 2001 issued by the chief executive SITECH. The aforesaid letter was addressed to Dr.P.R.Radhakrishnan the 1st opposite party. That letter would show that the centre namely NSS Union College run by the 1st opposite party P.R.Radhakrishnan as Director of NSS Union College is authorized to market, enroll and conduct selected courses of Karnataka State Open University, Madurai Kamaraj University and Alagappa University as a study centre from this academic year (2001). It is also stated that Examination centre will be decided by university based on strength and viability. The aforesaid letter issued by the chief executive SITECH would not make it clear that the NSS union college is recognized by Alagappa university as their examination centre. But this letter would only show that the 1st opposite party as the director of the NSS Union college is authorized to conduct the courses of Alagappa university as study centre. The NSS Union college is also treated as an authorized centre to market, enroll and conduct selected courses of Karnataka State open university, Madurai Kamaraj University and Alagappa University. So the case of the opposite parties that the NSS union college is recognized as an examination centre by Alagappa University cannot be believed or accepted. Thus in fact and effect the opposite parties have played unfair trade practice, in making the complainant and other students to believe that the NSS Union College is a recognized Examination centre of Alagappa university. 17. Another important allegation levelled against the opposite parties is that the opposite parties failed to keep their assurance given to the complainant that her name would duly registered with the university by the 1st opposite party and she would be allowed to appear for the university examination. On the other hand, the opposite parties would contend that no such assurance was given to the complainant regarding registration with the University but the complainant was specifically informed that she should herself get her name registered with the university by remitting the required fee. It is also contended that the aforesaid matter regarding registration with the university was informed by notices published on the notice board and also by reading the same in the class. The case of the complainant is that the prospectus is vague regarding the registration with the university. The learned counsel for the complainant has taken us to clause 11 and 15 of A7 prospectus. Clause 11 reads as follows:- “All fees payable to the University as per the prospectus and their instructions are to be paid by DD in favour of the University. Centre charges, as approved by the university are to be paid to the College, which is utilized for conducting the contact programmes/other services rendered by the college. Other fees collected in any by any body is not the responsibility of the University or Programme Officer. In addition to above the Candidates have to pay the Cost of Application form, Registration fee, Exam fee, Corpus fund, other expenditures to attend training etc in other places and so forth as intimated by the Programme Officer/University.” And clause 15 is as follows:- “The application form enclosed with this information booklet is provisional for Selection purpose only and original Application form for admission to the university will be given after selection on payment of actual Cost.” It is also specified in A7 prospectus below rule 15 as follows:- “Fees or any charges paid to the college or university are neither refundable nor transferable, whatsoever be the reasons”. 18. So the aforesaid stipulations incorporated in the prospectus would not make it clear that the application for registration and the application for university examination are to be sent by the students themselves directly to the university. On the other hand, the aforesaid conditions stipulated in the prospectus issued by the NSS Union College would give a clear indication that all the fees payable to the university are to be paid by the students/candidates for getting their name registered with the university and for appearing for the university examinations. It would also give a clear indication that the NSS Union college authorities will collect those fees from the students and the application for registration and application for examination will be forwarded to the University by the NSS Union college authorities. There is much force in the allegation made by the complainant that the opposite parties had given an assurance that the registration of her name with the university will be done by the opposite parties by forwarding required applications to the university. It is admitted by the opposite parties that they themselves distributed application for admission (Registration with the university) and the application for appearing for the university examination. They have no case that the application for registration/admission and the application for university examination were obtained by the students themselves directly from the university. On the other hand, those application forms were obtained by the opposite parties from the university and those applications forms were distributed to the students through opposite parties. If that be the position, it can be inferred that there was a clear understanding between the opposite parties and the students like the complainant that filled up application forms for admission and examination are to be submitted by the students to the office of the NSS Union college and the same will be forwarded through opposite parties’ college to the university. No doubt about the fact that the required fees are to be paid by the students. Complainant has produced A4 and A10 photocopies of demand drafts for Rs.15,000/- and Rs.530/- respectively infavour of the Registrar, Alagappa University. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the registration fee prescribed by the Alagappa University is Rs.15,000/- and Rs.530/- is the examination fee. It is the definite case of the complainant that demand draft was taken by the complainant as instructed by the opposite parties and produced and submitted before the NSS union college authorities. Thus, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to forward the fees remitted by the complainant by way of demand draft drawn infavour of the Registrar, Alagappa University towards the Registration fee and examination fee. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the name of the complainant was not registered with the university due to non remittance of the registration fee. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant could not appear for the university examination because of the failure to remit the registration fee and examination fee. The affidavit sworn to by the complainant would establish the fact regarding the failure on the part of the opposite parties to forward the demand draft produced by the complainant towards the registration fee and examination fee. The complainant herself was examined in chief as PW1; but there was nobody to cross-examine the complainant. The opposite parties remained expartes in the proceedings. Thus, the affidavit sworn to by the complainant stands unchallenged. 19. In paragraph 12 (last sentence) of the version it is stated that the complainant got back the DD from the office of the opposite parties, NSS Union college and that fact is admitted by the complainant in paragraph 9 of the complaint. But the aforesaid statement in paragraph 12 of the written version cannot be taken as correct. In paragraph 9 of the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant after her return from Chennai approached the opposite parties and demanded DD for Rs.15,530/- which had collected by the opposite parties from the complainant. It is also alleged that the complainant approached the opposite parties a number of times to get back the DD which they kept in their hand. It is also stated therein that the opposite parties willfully and deliberately did not send the registration fee and examination fee to the university. The contentions taken by the opposite parties in paragraph 12 of the written version would give an indication that the complainant had submitted the demand drafts with the opposite parties and that the opposite parties failed to forward those demand drafts to the university namely Alagappa University. The materials on record would prove the case of the complainant that there occurred deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in forwarding the demand drafts taken by the complainant in favour of the Registrar, Alagappa University towards the registration fee and examination fee. We have no hesitation to accept the aforesaid case pleaded and proved by the complainant. Hence we hold that there occurred deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in getting the name of the complainant registered with the university for the MSc (IT Course) and also in forwarding the examination fee to the university. 20. The opposite parties have produced photocopies of 2 notices dated:20..9..2000 and 8..6..2001 to substantiate their contention that the students of MSc (IT Course) including the complainant were informed the fact that the registration fee and examination fee by way of demand drafts are to be forwarded to the university by the students themselves directly. But there is nothing on record to prove the said case of the opposite parties that those two notices were infact published on the notice board and read over the same to the students in their respective classes. The said photocopies of notices would give an indication that copy of the same are kept in the master file maintained by NSS Union College. But the aforesaid master file has not been produced in this case. Nobody has given evidence in support of the contention that those notices were published on the notice board or that the students of MSc (IT Course) were aware of such notices published by the Principal, NSS Union College. No reliance can be placed on these photocopies of the notices said to have been published on the notice board and kept in the master file. The original of the aforesaid notices have not been produced in this case. The Principal who issued those notices have not been examined in this case. The circumstances would only support the case of the complainant that these photocopies are only fabricated documents to suit the contention taken by the opposite parties. But the other materials on record would prove the case of the complainant that there occurred omission, negligence or lapses on the part of the opposite parties in forwarding the demand drafts which were submitted by the complainant to the office of the NSS Union college for forwarding the same to Alagappa University towards registration fee and examination fee. The circumstances would also throw light on the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 21. Another point to be noted at this juncture is the admitted case of the parties that only the complainant and other 5 students could not write the University Examination conducted by Alagappa University for MSc(IT Course). Among the other 5 students four of them filed separate complaints as OP Nos:35/02, 36/02, 37/02 and 38/02 before this commission. The complainant herein filed a petition as I.A.682/2003 for joint trial of all the five Ops by treating the OP:34/02 as the leading case. But this commission by the order dt:8..7..03 dismissed the same on the mere ground that the complainants are different. But both parties filed their documents in this OP by treating this OP as the leading case. 22. It is the admitted case that there were altogether 18 students joined in NSS Union College, North Paravur for MSc(IT Course). But the complainant and five other candidates/students could not write the university examination which commenced on 23..10..2001. There is no dispute that the remaining 12 students/candidates could appear for the MSc(IT course) examination on 23..10..2001 at Chennai and that the aforesaid 12 students from NSS Union college could appear for the examination at the examination centre in Chennai on 23..10..2001. The opposite parties have no case that the other 12 students forwarded the DDs directly to the University or they directly submitted their application for registration with the university. These circumstances would make it clear that there occurred some negligence, lapses or omission on the part of the opposite parties in forwarding the demand drafts submitted by the six students including the complainant. There can be no doubt about the fact that there occurred deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in getting the name of the complainant and other five students registered with the university. It is only because of the aforesaid negligence and omission on the part of the opposite parties in forwarding the demand drafts drawn in favour of the Registrar, Alagappa University, the complainant and the other five students could not appear for the examination at Chennai on 23..10..2001. The evidence on record would establish the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties. It would also establish deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in getting the name of the complainant registered with Alagappa University. It would further show that the complainant could not appear for the examination for MSc(IT course) at the examination centre in Chennai on 23..10..2001 only because of the negligence, lapses and omissions on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not disputed the fact that the complainant along with her father started their journey to Chennai on 17..10..2001 for appearing for the MSc(IT course) examination on 23..10..2001. The complainant suffered mental agony and also financial loss on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. There can be no doubt about the fact that the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties and also for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 23. The complainant has prayed for getting refund of Rs.1,73,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 17..10..2001. She has also claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties with a cost of Rs.10,000/-. It is alleged that at the time of admission the complainant remitted Rs.1,15,530/- under various heads and the same was received by the opposite parties. It is the case of the complainant that she remitted Rs.30,000/- towards capitation fee. The opposite parties in their written version categorically denied acceptance of any amount by way of capitation fee or otherwise. The complainant could not produce any document to support the averment in the complaint that Rs.30,000/- was paid to the opposite parties by way of capitation fee or donation. Exts.A1 to A6 are the cash receipts issued from NSS Union college, North Paravur. These are the original receipts issued from NSS union college for remittance of fees at the office of the NSS Union college. But the complainant could not produce any receipt for the alleged payment of Rs.30,000/- towards the capitation fee. There is no other receipt or document produced from the side of the complainant to substantiate her case regarding payment of Rs.30,000/- to the opposite parties or at the office of NSS union college, North Paravur. The case of the complainant that she paid Rs.30,000/- at the time of admission or afterwards towards capitation fee cannot be believed or accepted. 24. The aforesaid receipts would show that the complainant had remitted a total of Rs.45,300/- from the date of the admission and thereafter. The aforesaid amount was paid with the ultimate object and purpose of getting MSc IT post graduate degree. But because of the negligence and omission on the part of the opposite parties the complainant could not appear for the examination and thereafter the complainant left the opposite parties’ educational institution namely NSS Union college, North Paravur. Thus, no purpose has been served by the payment of Rs.45,300/- by the complainant. So, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.52,100/- remitted by her under various heads. The complainant has categorically stated in her complaint that she went to Chennai along with her father for appearing for the MSc IT examination at Chennai and she had to stay at Chennai up to 23..10..2001. She has also expended an amount for her to and fro journey from Ernakulam to Chennai and also for her stay with her father at Chennai for few days that is from 18..10..2001 to 23..10..2001 she has also incurred other incidental expenses also. It is further to be noted that the complainant had also spent amounts for attending the classes at NSS union college for a period of one year and in connection with she had to incur expenses incidentally. Sum of Rs.20,000/- can be taken as reasonable amount expended by the complainant in connection with her joining of MSc IT course in NSS Union college, North Paravur. The opposite parties are made liable for the said sum of Rs.20,000/- also. 25. The complainant has claimed a total of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and also for the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties. We have already held that there occurred deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and that the opposite parties have also adopted unfair trade practice in the matter of imparting training and coaching to the complainant and other students for MSc (IT Course). There can be no doubt about the fact that complainant lost her one full year due to the joining in the opposite parties NSS Union College for MSc (IT course). She did not obtain any benefit on account of joining in the said course conducted by the opposite parties. It is also the case of the complainant that she discontinued the aforesaid course and she joined for another course in the next academic year. The fact that the complainant discontinued the MSc (IT course) is not disputed or denied by the opposite parties. The facts and circumstances would also make it clear that the complainant had suffered mental agony as well as financial loss. Considering all these aspects a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant. Thus, a total of Rs.90,300/- is taken as the fair and reasonable compensation due to the complainant from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.90,300/- to the complainant with a cost of Rs.2500/-. The aforesaid compensation amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of this order. In the result the complaint in OP:36/02 is allowed. Thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,300/- to the complainant by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also entitled to get cost of Rs.2500/- from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. SRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER OP:NO:36/2002 APPENDIX COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS Exts.A1 to A6: Cash receipts Ext.A7 : Prospectus (copy) Ext.A8 : copy of certificate of merit issued to the complainant From NSS Union College. Ext.A9 : Copy of lawyer notice. Ext.A10 : Reply notice. WITNESS EXAMINED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMLAINANT PW1 : Joshy.V. DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Photocopy of the application submitted by the complainant in the prescribed application form of NSS Union College for admission to MSc (IT Course) with the photocopy of the declaration signed by the complainant. 2. Photocopy of the notice dated:20..9..2000 issued by the Principal, NSS Union College to all students of MSc (IT course). 3. Photocopy of the notice dated:8..6..2001 issued by the principal, NSS Union College to all MSc (IT students). 4. Photocopy of the complaint in OS:114/02 filed by NSS Union College as plaintiff against the complainant as defendant before the Munsiff Court, North Paraur. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES NIL SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
