IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 3rd day of January 2010 C.C.No.301/08 Vivek.P.K., S/o Unnikrishan, Thiyerath House, : Complainant Cherukunnu P.O., Kannur District. Vs. The Manager, Nirmala Industrial Training Centre, : Opposite Party: Pariyaram, Kannur. O R D E R Smt.M.D.Jessy , Member This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.36,729/- as compensation for the mental agony and to return the S.S.L.C. Book and Plus Two mark list together with the cost of this litigation. The brief facts of the case of complainant are as follows: The complainant joined in the institution of Opposite Party for Electrical Trade impressed by the Opposite Party’s advertisement and the explanation given by the Manager. At the time of joining Opposite Party received Rs.6,729/- in the item of course fee and also original of S..L.C. book and plus two mark list. Opposite Party informed that these certificates were kept for the purpose of registration. Thereafter when the classes were started he has a totally different experience from what was explained by the Opposite Party Manager. The standard of classes was very low and most of the periods were free due to the shortage of teachers. The classes were conducted not with the teachers qualified enough and capable of holding the classes. Thereafter Complainant talked with the Opposite Party and informed in the month of December 2005 that he does not want to continue the classes telling them about the poor quality of standard of teaching. Complainant demanded for refund of course fees and documents. At first he denied the demand but then he told the Complainant to pay Rs.7,500/- for returning the certificates . Opposite Party had been bargaining by keeping the certificate with them. Because of these reasons he could not go for his higher studies for the last three years. Moreover, .he could not utilize the opportunity to go abroad when he got employment in Gulf service and he was not able to apply for passport without the S.S.L.C. book. He has also lost three years career. This is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party and he is liable to return the certificates and also to return the amount of Rs.6,729/- received as fee and Rs.30,000/- as compensation. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice Opposite Party filed version. The brief contents of the contentions are as follows: The complainant joined in the institution for electrical trade. At the time of joining the course they entered into an agreement with the institution as stipulated in the prospectus; that they will pay the tuition fee, examination fee, etc. It was also agreed that in any case that the Complainant if discontinue the course he will pay the entire fees payable for the entire period of the course and the certificates will be asked to be return only thereafter. The Complainant was a poor performer in S.S.L.C. and Higher Secondary examinations. The academic capabilities were also not sufficient to cope up with the intense training imparted from the institution. His attendance record was very poor. As a result of the same the Complainant had voluntarily discontinued with his studies. He never talked about the inferior quality of the course. The Opposite Party is imparting education as per the grade basis of NCVT public examinations. The percentage of success of the institution is much above the average. They are qualified teachers in the institution and the standard of training giving to student is very good. No false promise given to Complainant. Complainant had paid Rs.6,700/- towards the tuition fee s and other charges. He is liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,500/- more as per the stipulation and then only the question of return of S.S.L.C. book etc. arise. Complainant is not entitled for any refund of fees. There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence he is entitled for any relief. The opposite Party suffered a loss due to untimely departure of the Complainant leaving a seat vacant. This complaint is only to harass this Opposite Party. Hence to discuss this complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. - Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled for any remedy as prayed in the complaint?
- Relief and Cost
The evidence of the oral testimony of Complainant as PW1, DW1, DW2, Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.B1 to B5.
Issues 1 to 3: Admittedly Complainant joined in the institution of Opposite Party for electrician trade during the year 2005-2007. The case of the Complainant is that he has paid Rs.6,729/- towards fees at the time of joining the course. After the admission when regular classes were started he could understand within two months that the standard of classes given was very poor and most of the periods were free for want of teachers. He understood that coaching will not help to attain efficiency in trades. Thereafter he informed the authorities that he would discotinue his studies after December 2005 and when he asked for course fees and certificates the opposite party is reluctant to return it first and then asked for Rs.7,500/- if the certificates wanted to be returned. Thus he could not continue his studies. He could not even apply for passport even though he got opportunity for employment in Gulf. Ext.A5(1) shows that he has paid Rs.5950 towards fees on 27.07.05, and Ext.A5(2) shows that Rs.257 paid on 24.10.05. Ext.A5(3) & (4) dated 24.10.05 and 11.11.05 shows that there was payment of Rs.272/- and Rs.250/- respectively. Thus it can be seen that the complainant had paid altogether Rs.6739/-. Opposite Party’s case on the other hand, is that they are imparting training as per the guidelines issued by NCVT. There are qualified teachers in their institution and the standard of training given to the students is of very good standard. Opposite Party further contented that the Complainant has never talked to Opposite Party with respect to the quality of teaching. Opposite Party has also contented that complainant was very irregular in attending the class and his result in the monthly test was also very poor. It can be seen that Complainant had paid Rs.6739/- towards fees. Complainant any how discontinued his studies. Ext.B3 shows that the presence of the Complainant had not been marked even a single day. Complainant’s name is entered in the attendance register as the last name. As per Ext.B3, Complainant had not been attended the class from 1st August 2006. Ext.B3 is claimed to be the register of Attendance Electrician Trade 2005-2007. But the first page starts with Attendance for the month of August 2006. Complainant has pleaded that he has informed the Opposite Party that he was not willing to continue the class after 2005 December. So position of attendance of the Complainant can only be evaluated by verifying the attendance register right from beginning of the class up to December 2005. That register gas not been produced. There is no need to produce the register thereafter since the complainant himself has admitted that he had been discontinued his studies from December 2005. Opposite Party also has given evidence that he has continued studies for six months only. Then what is the meaning in producing the attendance register excluding the period that he had been continued his studies. The main demand of the Complainant is to refund the fees and to return his certificates. The Complainant alleged that the standard of the teaching was poor and there were no qualified teachers in the institutions. None of the documents forwarded by the Opposite party does not show that there are qualified teachers. So also no evidence has been adduced to this effect neither by chief affidavit nor by the Opposite Party’s evidence adduced by DW2 principal. This is a matter that could have been easily proved by the Opposite Party either examining the concerned teachers or else by Opposite Party. Opposite Party did not discharge the obligation of answering this point. It can be seen that the Opposite Party is ready to return the certificates of the Complainant if he pay the full fee of two years course. The Complainant already paid Rs.6,739/-. The demand of the Opposite Party is to pay Rs.7000/- as balance fee for the full course. The Principle laid down in the decision FIITJEE Ltd. Vs Ishaan Punj reported in 2008 CTJ 885 (CP) SCDRC) is very much applicable to this case. It was held that “The practice of charging fee in advance for two years is certainly an unfair trade practice on the part of the institution engaged in imparting education on training. They are exploiting the students. They cannot forfeit fee of the students if they have not availed of their services”. In the case in hand the duration of the course was for two years ie. from 2005-2007. After attending the classes up to December 2005 Complainant found that the educational training being imparted by the Opposite Party was not fruitful to achieve the desired result. Thereafter he informed that he did not want to continue with the course and requested for refund of the fees remitted and to return the certificates. But the Opposite Party denied both refund of amount and return of document. Admittedly the course was for two years. The Opposite Party demanding the payment of fees for these two years for returning the document. The above sited decision makes it clear that such contract of charging fee for service which has not been availed for consideration amounts to unfair trade practice. The decision even points out that even in the case of advance payment should not be allowed to forfeit the fee of a student received in advance if the students had not availed of service for a considerable balance period. The decision also adds that a student can certainly leave the course midstream if he finds that the service rendered is deficient and education imparted is sub-standard service and the education being imparted does not lead him anywhere. In the light of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the demand of Opposite Party to pay Rs.7500/- is only a part of unfair trade practice. Hence the Complainant is entitled to get the certificates returned without any payment. Since the first year course was attended by the Complainant he is not entitled for the refund of fees paid. Complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost of this proceedings. The issues 1 to 3 are partly allowed in favour of complainant. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly in favour of Complainant directing the Opposite Party to return the certificates, ie. S.S.L.C. Book and Plus Two mark list together with a sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as cost to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is entitled to execute the order in accordance with the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A2 & 3.Postal receipt and AD A4.Reply notice A5Receipts issued by OP A6.Demand slip issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Agreement dt.19.7.05 B2.Prospectus of OP B3.Register of attendance B4.Copy of the monthly test conducted by OP B5.Copy of the certificate Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.C.T.Joseph DW2.Fr.James Morais /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
