Date of filing : 29-09-2011
Date of order : 29-09-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.244/2011
Dated this, the 29th day of September 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
P.T.Govindan Nambiar, } Complainant
S/o. Karunakaran Nambiar, Rtd.Professor,
CC.62, Chinmaya Colony, Vidyanagar,
Kasaragod.
(Adv.K.Shrikantha Shetty, Kasaragod).
1. Kerala State Electronic Development } Opposite parties
Corporation Ltd.(KELTRON), Keltron
Equipment Complex, Karakulam.Po,
Trivandrum.
(Adv.Muraleekrishna.S, Hosdurg)
2. Akshaya Centre, Garden City Complex,
B.C.Road, Vidyanagar, Kasaragod.
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA,MEMBER
The brief facts of this case is that the complainant enrolled himself as a student for the Medical Transcription course as per an advertisement that appeared in the News paper during November 2009. The course was being conducted by opposite parties 1 & 2 as a franchisee. Complainant approached opposite party No.2 for the details of the course. As per the advice of opposite party No.2 complainant took an entrance examination after remitting a fee of `100/-. Thereafter paid the course fee as demanded by opposite parties. But opposite parties failed to conduct the course and periodical examinations and evaluations as detailed in the scheme provided at the time of providing admission to the course and as promised by the instructor on behalf of opposite party No.2 during first contact class. According to the complainant after collecting the fees opposite parties shown deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. Notice is served to Opposite party No.2 but was absent when the case called. According to opposite party No.1 it is admitted that the complainant was a student of Medical Transcription course conducted by opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. According to opposite party Rest of the allegations raised by the complainant are exaggerated one sided versions and are materially false also. There is the orientation session about Medical Transcription on 14-12-2009 given to the potential students before they join the training programme. Complainant was not a student on roll at the time of giving 1st assignment. On the basis of the meeting held at Mumbai on December 7, 2009 it was decided to make changes in training programme to improve the quality and make the students more employable. Changes have been initiated in December 2009 to convert the M.T. Training Programme as per Association for Health Care Documentation Integrity “AHDI” the nodel agency for M.T. in U.S. guidelines. Changes took effect and syllabus updated as per “AHDI” guidelines in January, which is an international standard guidelines. There was an error in the e-mail provided by candidate, it is informed to the complainant by opposite party No.1, and the same was updated with a mild delay. The complainant did not attend the contact class on March 23, 2010 held at Kasaragod. Opposite party No.1 has announced the 2nd instalment due was as on March 31, and the students were informed about the actions if the fee is not paid. A remainder mail was sent to all on April 6th 2010 intimating students about the last date of fee payment as April 14th. ID’s of students whose fee has not been received on or before April 17th were blocked on that day. The total number of students in the batch of the complainant who attended final examinations were 9. The complainant who was not vigilant in completing the course is now trying to make unlawful gain by raising false and frivolous allegations.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and produced documents in support of his case which are marked as Exts A1 to A9. Opposite party No.1 has no oral evidence, produced documents which are marked as Exts B1 to B9. Both sides heard and documents perused.
4. In this case opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 conducted a Medical Transcription course as a franchisee. Complainant is attracted by the advertisement of this course appeared in the news paper and approached opposite party No.2 for details. As per the advice of opposite party No.2, complainant enrolled himself as a student for the course. But opposite parties failed to conduct the course and periodical examinations and evaluations as detailed in the scheme provided at the time of admission. Opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that the course would be of six months duration and that there would be regular contact classes every month in Kasaragod town area itself. The instructor at the class also assured that the course would be of six months duration and that there would be regular contact classes during the 3rd week of every month. Thereafter there was no information regarding the commencement of the course for nearly a month complainant submitted the 1st instalment of fee on 16-12-2009 there was no information from opposite parties on next two months regarding the course or classes. Thereafter the method of course changed and students were asked to receive lessons on line under the new scheme. Eventhough complainant’s user name and password were given to opposite parties as per their request on 16-02-2010 it was up loaded by opposite party No.2 only on 2-3-2010. The complainant’s access to the course was terminated on14-09-2010, after receiving the 2nd instalment of fee he was not permitted to attend the examination. Complainant produced Ext.A3 to prove his mail ID is blocked due to non-payment of 2nd instalment dt. April 17, 2010. Ext.A5 shows evenafter paying 2nd instalment complainant’s ID continued blocked till 2nd June 2010. Eventhough course was commenced on 14-12-2009, the revised course was made available to the complainant on 2-6-2010, after more than 6 months. Exts B1- B5 makes it clear that. At the time of advertisement and commencement of the course, opposite parties were not prepared to conduct the course. After collecting the fees opposite party No.2 was playing a delaying tactics which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Any fault or imperfection or inadequacy in this regard itself amounts to deficiency in service which is defined by Sec 2(1) g of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as under: deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or has been undertaken to be performed by a person inpursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
5. Due to the erratic and irreresponsible way by which the course is conducted, and constant change in the method of conduct of the course, due to the change in the certification criteria complainant could not complete the course in the intended time which is clear from the evidences brought before the Forum. This caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant. Ext.A9 proves that the complainant had made sincere efforts to complete the course in time.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to return the entire amount of `18,850/- collected from the complainant as fees with a compensation of `10,000/- as compensation and `5000/- as cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which `18,850/- will carry interest at @9% from the date of complaint till payment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Medical Transcription Training Grading Criteria
A2 to A8. Copy of Gmails.
A9.Medical Transcription Assignment prepared by P.T.Govindan Nambiar.
B1 to B9 copy of Gmails.
PW1.Govindan Nambiar.P.T.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
