BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.174/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 20^th June, 2019

      Present:   1) Sri. C.V.Maragoor

B.Com., L.L.M., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.           

                                        B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri C.V.MARAGOOR,

President

1.          This complaint is filed by Srividya.S.Iyer resident of Mysuru against the opposite party No.1 – Vice-chancellor, Karnataka State Open University and opposite party No.2 – Mr.Sreejith, HYASOFT, Near RTO, Mysuru to pay a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-  as damages for her discontinuation of education. 
2.            The complainant after completion of PUC in Koutilya Vidyalaya in the year 2011 got admitted for Chartered Accountant coaching class in PENTAGON Group Prime Academy for correspondence course.  Further, the complainant has joined for BBM course in opposite party No.1 University through the opposite party No.2 headed by Administrator Mr.Sreejith.  The complainant has completed her first semester of BBM in the year 2012-13 and thereafter completed her second to fourth semesters in the year 2013 to 2015.  The complainant has got admitted to the fifth semester of BBM course by paying necessary fee, but the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 did not conduct the sixth semester examination and not issued the fifth semester marks card.  The opposite party No.1 gave evasive answer that due to some technical problem they have not extended renewal of BBM course and gave false assurance that problem will be solved as soon as possible.  The complainant has waited for all most seven years after PUC examination.  But, she did not get degree of Bachelor of Business Management.  Bachelor degree is necessary to take chartered accountant course. The bright future of the complainant is damaged.  Hence, this complaint.
3.          The opposite party No.1 after the service of notice put in appearance through its counsel and filed detailed written version contending that the complainant is not a consumer since she neither hired the service of this opposite party nor the opposite party No.1 has rendered any services for consideration.  It is the case of opposite party No.1 that the complainant might be student of one of Academic Collaboration Institute M/s Virtual Education, New Delhi through one of their study center opposite party No.2.  The ACI i.e. Academic Collaboration Institute (VET) and opposite party No.2 are governed by memorandum of understandings dated 23.10.2008, 17.07.2010 and 25.08.2012 executed by VET in favour of opposite party No.1.  The fee sharing ratio between opposite parties i.e. ACI-VET and opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 is at 25%:50%: and 25% respectively.  Therefore, the opposite party No.2 is bound by the Karnataka State Open University (Academic Collaboration) Statutes 2011.  This opposite party is not aware that the complainant was perusing chartered accountancy course and by virtue her failure to obtain a degree certificate, her carrier has been suffered.  It is the next contention of opposite party that the degree is not must for candidate to pursue chartered accountancy after completing her/his 12^th examination.
4.           It is the case of opposite party No.1 that the opposite party university was recognised till the year 2012-13 by the Distant Education Council (DEC) New Delhi constituted by MHRD and UGC was regulating the distance education in the nation.  Later in the year 2013 DEC was repealed and UGC has been vested with regulatory powers in respect of distance education.  The complainant got herself admitted with the opposite party No.2 in the academic year 2012-13 and during that time opposite party university was recognised by the erstwhile Distance Education Council (DEC), New Delhi. There is no cause of action to file this complaint against the opposite party.  The Registrar of the University is a necessary party instead of Vice-chancellor.  On the above grounds, the opposite party No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5.           The opposite party No.2 despite the service of notice failed to appear before this Forum hence, he is proceeded exparte. 
6.           The complainant filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced several documents in support of her case.  On behalf of opposite party No.1, Dr.B.Ramesh Registrar filed affidavit and produced memorandum of understandings executed between it and Virtual Education Trust.
7.           The learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.1 have submitted their written arguments and the  points that would arise for determination are as under:-   

1. Whether the complainant proves that she is Consumer under the Consumer Protect Act, 1986?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that the act of opposite parties not issuing marks card of fifth semester, conducting sixth examination of BBM course and issue of BBM degree certificate amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
3. Is complainant entitled to compensation of Rs.19,00,000/-?
4. What order?

8.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the affirmative;

Point No.2 :- In the affirmative;

Point No.3 :- Compensation a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-

Point No.4 :- As per final order for the below

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.         Point Nos.1 to 4:- The contention of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant has not hired services of it or it has not rendered services to the complainant as such she is not consumer under the C.P.Act.  Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  In Director, Vets Group of Maritime College V/s Lovish Prakash Guldcokar (2018) IV CPR 184 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission under Section 21 of C.P.Act held as under:-

“The petitioner was engaged in offering several courses including Higher National Diploma in Nautical Science – the complainant took admission in the aforesaid course and completed the same in 2005-2007 – The complainant came to know that the said course had not been approved by the Government of India, which information was not disclosed in the prospectus issued by the petitioner – Therefore, the complainant was not given the Continuous Discharge Certificate (CDC) from the Government – Hence, complaint was filed for compensation etc., which was allowed – The petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal – The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner filed this revision – Heard the counsels, perused the documents, evidence etc., - it is held that the complainant could not get his CDC due to the negligence of the O.P. which amounts to deficiency in service – Hence, there are no merits in the revision petition and therefore it is dismissed”.

10.      The facts of the above citation are aptly applicable to the case on hand since the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 without recognition of BBM course by UGC and Distance Education Council, New Delhi got admitted the complainant in 2012 and after collecting course and examination fee conducted 1 to 4 semesters and issued marks card, thereafter failed to conduct examination of sixth semester and issue BBM course degree certificate.  The opposite party No.1 without recognition of BBM course from the above authority started admitting the students including the complainant, as such the act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service as they failed to issue degree certificate by not conducting sixth semester examination.
11.       In case of Sudeept Nayak and others V/s International Maritime Institute (2017) I CPR 58 Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission have followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court which is in para No.8 of the judgement.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Buddhist Mission Dental College V/s Bhupesh Khurana I (2009) CPJ 25 (SC) where in it has held as under:-

“Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within ambit of service as defined in Consumer Protection Act.  Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions.  If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise.  The complainants had hired the services of respondents for consideration so they are consumers as defined in Consumer Protection Act”.

12.       In the above case the Apex Court clearly held that imparting of education by educational institution for consideration falls within the definition of consumer.  Further, in the same para they have followed the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case of Puneet Saran Vs. Vinod Kharchery AIR 2008 NOC 676 NCC where in it is held that institute run through franchise of IIMT Delhi Executive Director admitted students by falsely representing recognition of said institute by Global Information technology USA and assured placements.  Institute was held liable to refund course fee and to pay compensation for false promises and assurances. From the above decision it is clear that the complainant falls under the definition of consumer.
13.      The opposite party No.1 in the version, affidavit and written arguments admitted that the complainant has got admitted through its ACI study center opposite party No.2.  The complainant has produced the original marks card of 1 to 4 semesters issued by opposite party No.1 for appearing examination and get through in all the four semesters from 2013-15.  Further, the complainant has paid course and examination fee to opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.1 has failed to conduct sixth semester examination for the complainant and also failed to issue fifth semester marks card.  On account of this the complainant could not get BBM degree certificate.  It shows that the opposite party No.1 without getting recognition for BBM course allowed the complainant and other students to get admission through its ACI and continue the education for 2 to 3 years, lastly it failed to issue degree certificate.  The act of opposite parties not only amounts to deficiency in service but also it amounts to unfair trade practice.  The complainant could not get degree though she appeared for fifth semester of BBM course.  Consequently the complainant has lost her carrier of three years without getting degree certificate. In addition to that the complainant has spent two years hoping that the opposite parties will resolve the issue and issue degree certificate.  Thereafter, the complainant has approached this Forum.  The complainant has spent more than seven years after passing her 12^th examination and if she had obtained degree within three years from the date of completion of 12^th examination, she would have get suitable job or started earning money.  The earning of the complainant is assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month and for loss of five years due to act of opposite parties both are liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,00/- as compensation to the complainant.  For the forgoing reasons,  we proceed to pass the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint filed by Srividya.S.Iyer is partly allowed directing the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant within two months from the date of order.  In case the opposite parties fail to pay the said amount, it carries interest at 10% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its payment.  
2. Furnish the copy of the order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 20^th June, 2019)