BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 100/2007

Dated: 17..08..2009

Complainant:

Sudheer. S., 'Punarthom', T.C.36/252 (3), Perunthanni, Vivekananda Lane, Vallakkadavu-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. J.S. Sabu)

Opposite party:

Kerala Institute of Management Studies, 4^th Floor, Soundharya Buildings, Near Raymonds, M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001. Represented by its Managing Partner, Arun R. Chandran

(By Adv. K.P. Jayachandran)

This O.P having been heard on 15..07..2009, the Forum on 17..08..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The complainant in this case is a Diploma holder in Hotel Management and is working in Hotel Taj Malabar. The opposite party is the Learning Centre of one Punjab Technical University, established in the State of Punjab, which is conducting various professional courses throughout India by Distant Education Programme. Opposite party had made several advertisements about the various courses of the said University inclusive of B.sc Degree in Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Tourism conducted by the said University. Lured by the said advertisement about the B.Sc Degree in Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Tourism, the complainant made personal enquiry with the office of the opposite party, that at the time of the enquiry the complainant was impressed and assured by the opposite party that it has got very efficient teaching staffs and they would impart proficiency in the course mentioned. The complainant joined the course of B.Sc Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Tourism. The complainant paid Rs.18,500/- towards fee for the said course for the first semester and Rs.200/- towards the fee for application/prospectus. As per the direction of the opposite party the complainant entrusted with the opposite party his original certificates of SSLC Book, the Pre-Degree Certificate, Transfer Certificate and conduct certificate. The opposite party issued a receipt for the same, the complainant was assured by the opposite party that the study materials including the prospectus for the aforesaid course would be sent to the complainant within two weeks from 27/11/2006. On attending the classes the complainant was shocked to realise the fact that classes are conducted by unskilled and unqualified persons. The complainant had not been given either the study materials as promised nor even the prospectus of the Univeristy. On repeated enquiry with the opposite party the complainant was told that he need not be worried about that, but there was no progress in the course. Despite several demands made by several students inclusive of the complainant, the opposite party failed to appoint professionally qualified persons to conduct classes and study materials were not given even after the period of three months. In the circumstance, the complainant got serious doubts about the authenticity of the opposite party to conduct the courses offered by the said University, hence he demanded the opposite party to return the fees as well as original certificates. The Principal of the opposite party – Mr. Thomas Kuruvila agreed to the said demand and requested for one month's time for complying with the demand and he asked the complainant to contact him in first week of March 2007. Then the complainant contacted the opposite party on 5/3/2007, but to the surprise of the complainant the opposite party refused to accede to the request of the complainant quite contrary to their assurance. So the complainant was constrained to beg the opposite party to return the original certificates so that he can join other courses without losing one academic year. However the opposite party denied the same without assigning any reason for the same. The opposite party has no authority to withhold the original certificates of the complainant at any cost. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

2. The opposite party accepted notice from this Forum and they entered appearance through this lawyer. During the pendency of this case the complainant has filed an Interim application for directing the opposite party to return the original certificates viz., SSLC Book, the Pre-degree Certificate, Transfer certificate and conduct certificate. But the opposite party has not filed any objection, the counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no instruction from the opposite party. This Forum allowed the application and directed the opposite party to return the certificates to the complainant. But the opposite party never turned up to comply the order. Thereafter this Forum set the opposite party as ex-parte. The complainant had adduced evidence by filing affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Ext.P1 series were marked on his behalf. Opposite party has not cross examined the complainant and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.

3. Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

4. Points (i) & (ii) : The complainant joined the B.Sc Hotel Management Course conducted by the opposite party attracted by the advertisement of the opposite party. But the course conducted by the opposite party was very poor and the complainant had lost one academic year. Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum for compensation and for directing the opposite party to refund the fee and to return the original documents. To prove his contentions he has filed affidavit and documents. The documents marked as Ext.P1 series are the receipts issued by the opposite party for the acceptance of the course fee and the documents. As per Ext.P1 series on 27/11/2006 the complainant had paid Rs.13,200/- as 1^st sem part payment and fee for application form. As per Ext.P1 another receipt, he had paid Rs.5,500/- as balance admission fee. Accordingly the complainant had paid Rs.18,700/- to the opposite party for the above said course. But the opposite party failed to appoint professionally qualified person to conduct classes. And study materials were not given at proper time. In that circumstances the complainant decided to stop his studies and he demanded to return the original certificates to join for another courses wihout losing one academic year. But the opposite parties did not return the original certificates. This Forum, as per IA, directed the opposite party to return the original certificates of the complainant and that has not been complied by the opposite party.

5. In this case this Forum has given ample opportunity to the opposite party to contest the case. But the opposite party did not turn up. Hence we are of the view that on the basis of the evidences adduced by the complainant, the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint. Due to the deficient service of the opposite party, the complainant who is a student has been made to suffer and he has lost one academic year also. This loss cannot be compensated by any means and the deficient act of the opposite party is not at all justifiable. But though the loss cannot be calculated in terms of money, the complainant has to be compensated for the loss by the opposite party. Hence we allow the complaint.

In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund the fee remitted to the opposite party Rs.18,700/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand and seven hundred only) to the complainant and shall also return the original of SSLC Book, Pre-degree Certificate, Transfer Certificate and Conduct Certificate to the complainant. The opposite party shall also pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise 12% annual interest shall also be paid to the entire amount till the date of realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 17^th day of August, 2009.

BEENA KUMARI. A.,

MEMBER.

G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER. ad.

C.C.No.100/2007

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 series : Copy of receipt dated 27/11/2006 for (3 Nos.) Rs.13,200/-.

: Copy of receipt dated 27/11/2006 for Rs.5,500/- and another receipt dated 27/11/2006.

3. Opposite party's witness : NIL

IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL

PRESIDENT