DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Saturday the 29th day of October 2022
C.C. 117/2015
Complainant
Sreeja.T,
D/o Damodharan Nair,
Bharathanjali House,
Payyoli. P.O, Kozhikode.
(By Adv. Sri. Pavithran. K)
Opposite Parties
- Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy, Trissur, Represented by Secretary.
- Project Officer,
Kalabarathi foundation for Indian cultural and Heritage, Kerala Varma Road, Kanattukara, Thrissure – 650011.
- Chandran,
Sangeetha Bharathi Kalakendram,
Near State Bank of India,
Convent Road, Vatakara.
(By Adv. Sri. E.M. Vijayan)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant joined a diploma course in Bharathanatyam in the third opposite party institution in July 2011. The third opposite party had assured that on completion of the course, the certificate of the first opposite party would be issued to the complainant. She had remitted a total fee of Rs. 12,000/- in instalments to the third opposite party. Approximately, Rs. 15,000/- was collected from her by the third opposite party stating that workshops would be conducted in the institution of the second opposite party. The practical examination was not properly conducted. Till date, the result of the examination was not published and the certificate not issued. The opposite parties cheated her. She was put to untold hardship and mental agony due to the irresponsible attitude and conduct of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint for refund of the fee of Rs. 27,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
3. Separate written versions were filed by the first and third opposite parties . The second opposite party was set ex-parte.
4. The first opposite party has contended in the written version that there was an agreement between the first opposite party and second opposite party on 11/05/2011. Since the second opposite party violated the terms of the agreement and as there were several complaints, the agreement was cancelled on 29/06/2012. The first opposite party has no direct connection with the students. The fee was collected by the second opposite party. The first opposite party has no knowledge about the monetary transactions between the complainant and the other opposite parties. With above contentions, the first opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The contentions of the third opposite party, in brief, are as follows; They came to know that the first opposite party is conducting diploma course in classical dance and music through second opposite party , for which, franchisees were being given. The third opposite party contacted the second opposite party who told that there was an agreement between them and the first opposite party for conducting various diploma courses in classical dance and classical music and the students who passed the examination would be provided the diploma by the first opposite party. The second opposite party was responsible for imparting training, conducting the examination and issuing the certificates of the first opposite party. The understanding regarding the collection of fee from the students was that 80% of the total fee should be given to the second opposite party and the third opposite party is eligible for 20%. The third opposite party is only a franchisee and was eligible only for 20% of the total fee collected. It is the first and second opposite parties who were bound by the agreement entered in to between them for the conduct of the course and issuance the certificates to the students. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the third opposite party. A writ petition is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala against the first opposite party for violating the terms and conditions of the MOU signed between the first opposite party and the second opposite party and for refusing to issue certificates to the students. The third opposite party had provided all facilities to the students as per the franchisee agreement. There was no deficiency of service on their part. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
7. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Exts B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the third opposite party.
8. Heard. The complainant and the first opposite party filed brief arguments notes.
9. Points 1 and 2 : The complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the fee of Rs. 27,000/- paid by her and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. The complainant joined a diploma course in Bharathanatyam in the third opposite party institution which is a franchisee of the second opposite party. There was a memorandum understanding executed between the second opposite party and the third opposite party (Ext B1). The complainant paid the fee and completed the course. But the results are not published and the certificate was also not issued.
11. In order to substantiate her case, the complainant has got herself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed poof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. She has deposed that certificate was not yet issued and she was put to irreparable loss and hardship.
12. The first and third opposite parties alone contested the proceedings. The second opposite party chose to remain absent and did not participate in the proceedings. The contention of the first opposite party is that they had cancelled the agreement with the second opposite party. The third opposite party is putting all the blame on the first and second opposite parties. The Director of the third opposite party was examined as RW1. RW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting the contentions in the written version.
13. It is not disputed that the complainant joined the diploma course in the third opposite party institution and the course was completed. The course was conducted by the third opposite party as a franchisee of the second opposite party. The fee was collected by the third opposite party. Ext A1 is the fee payment details. The certificate of attendance for internal sessions were issued by the second opposite party, the copy of which is marked as Ext A2. The hall ticket was issued by the second opposite party and study centre is shown as the third opposite party institution, the copy of which is marked as Ext A4. The fee was collected by the third opposite party and was shared between the third opposite party and the second opposite party and the share pattern was 20:80 as can be seen from Ext B1. It is not disputed that the certificate was not issued to the complainant and according to her, even the result of the examination was not published. It goes without saying that the act of the second and third opposite parties amounts to gross deficiency of service.
14. The opposite parties 2 and 3, who are responsible for the conduct of the course and the issuance of the certificate, are blaming each other. The interse dispute among the opposite parties has put the complainant in a very sorry state of affairs and she was denied the certificate in spite of completion of the course. Due to the negligent and irresponsible attitude and conduct of the second and third opposite parties, the complainant has sustained severe mental agony and hardship besides monetary loss. She has paid the fee of Rs. 12,000/- as evidenced by Ext A1. Even though the complainant has stated that she has paid Rs. 15,000/- for workshops, no receipt is produced. Apart from this, the complainant was put to severe mental agony and hardship. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately by the second and third opposite parties. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 claimed in the complaint is quite reasonable. The complainant is entitled for refund of the fee of Rs. 12,000/- and also entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the second and third opposite parties, who were jointly and severally liable. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5000/- as cost of the proceedings.
15. Point No.3: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC 117/2015 is allowed.
b) The second and third opposite parties are hereby directed to refund of Rs. 12,000 (Rupees twelve thousand only) to the complainant, being the fee collected from her.
c) The second and third opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) as compensation to the complainant.
d) The second and third opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000 (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29th day of October, 2022.
Date of Filing: 23/01/2015.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the payment details.
Ext. A2 – Copy of the attendance certificate.
Ext. A3 – Copy of the agreement.
Ext. A4 – Copy of the Hall ticket.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 - Copy of the agreement.
Ext. B2 – Copy of the certificate (Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi Kalabharathi).
Ext. B3 – Copy of order dated 04/02/2016 in WP(C). No. 15214 of 2012 (B) of the
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Sreeja. T (Complainant).
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – K. C. Chandran.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded / By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
