D.O.F:08/06/2022

                                                                                         D.O.O:30/03/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.115/2022

Dated this, the 30^th day of March 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         : PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M   : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                          : MEMBER

Smt. Sahana.P.V (38 years),

D/o Late Dr.P.V.Bhat &

W/o Satyanarayana,                                                  : Complainant

R/at Karattuvayal, Kanhangad,

Hosdurg Taluk,

Kasaragod District,

P.O. Kanhangad

(Adv. K. Dinesh Kumar)

                                                  And

1. Mr. Ashif,

All India Distance Education,

Centre for Distance Education,

Opposite Padmam Theatre,

Cheratukuzhi Road Down Hill,

Malapuram, Malapuram District.

(Adv: Sumesh. T)

: Opposite Parties

2. Manager,

All India Distance Education,

Centre for Distance Education,

Grand Max Building,

Opp. BSNL Exchange,

Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod District,

P.O. Kanhangad- 671317

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER

The Complainant, Sahana had completed Law degree course and also PG, DACG courses and started freelance counseling centre at Kanhangad.  For a better counseling, she was adviced to have a course is psychology.  The complainant came to know of opposite parties’ institution and contacted them.  The Opposite party assured that they have MSc psychology course in distant education programme.  The complainant visited 2^nd Opposite party’s office at Kanhangad from where they made to believe her that they are conducting examinations strictly by complying all university norms and the valuation and publication of result are time bound.  They also informed that they have got a very good reputation in distance education field.  Believing the assurance given by Opposite party the complainant had remitted course fee of Rs.10,200/- on 25/06/2018,  Rs.10,000/- on 07/09/2018, Rs.10,000/- on 27/10/2018 and Rs.4,800/- on 04/01/2019.  Later she paid exam fee of Rs.4,275/-.  The examination was in Malappuram district, during the period of wide spread of corona virus throughout the state.  The complainant took a rented car and with much difficulties travelled all the way to exam centre in Malappuram district and attended the exam.  After the examination both the opposite parties assured that the result will be declared and published at the earliest.  The complainant was eagerly waiting for the result and course certificate.  But after the exam no response from opposite party’s side. When enquired, they did not give a convincing reply or explanation.  The complainant had appeared for several interviews expecting the publication of result and course certificate.  But inspite of repeated requests both opposite parties did not give any proper reply or explanations.  The complainant lost several best job opportunities on account of opposite party’s negligent attitude.  The complainant undergone severe mental strain on account of the opposite parties lethargic attitude.  The complainant is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.  Both opposite parties are liable to make good the loss and mental agony undergone by the complainant.  The complainant is seeking refund of the course fee of Rs.39,275/- with a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with cost of this proceedings.

          Notice served to Opposite Parties but they remained absent, name of Opposite Parties No.1 and No.2 called, absent, set exparte.

          The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A8 marked. 

          The questions raised for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief?

The case of the complainant is that she joined opposite parties institution for Msc psychology course in distant education programme.  As per the direction of opposite parties the complainant paid the entire course fee and exam fee.  The examination was in Malappuram district during the period of wide spread of corona virus and she was constrained to took a rented car and with much difficulty traveled all the way to the exam centre in Malappuram.  Even though both opposite parties assured that result will be published soon it is not published so far.  The opposite parties failed to give a proper explanation for the delay in publishing the result.  Due to the evasive attitude of opposite parties the complainant had undergone huge financial loss and mental strain.  She had lost some best opportunity in the absence of course certificate.  The complainant valued her loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant had produced Ext.A1 to A8 to prove her case.  Ext.A1 to A5 are the receipts issued by opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A6 is the legal notice issued by the complainant opposite parties. Ext.A7 is the postal acknowledgment.  Ext.A8 is the reply notice.  Ext.A1 to A5 proves the payment of the course fee, Ext.A6, Ext.A7 and A8 proves the case of the complainant. In Ext.A8 reply notice the opposite parties contends that they have no role in publishing the exam result as the publication of result is to be decided by the concerned university.  By this opposite parties admitting that result is not published yet and the course certificate is not issued to the complainant as promised at the time of joining.  After grabbing money from students opposite parties failed to issue a course certificate to them in time.  The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Ext.A8 proves that there is severe deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  The complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony.  The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss and agony suffered by the complainant.

The complainant’s claim is to refund the course fee with a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with cost.  But the complainant did not produce any evidence to support her claim of such a huge loss.

          Considering the facts of this case and the documents submitted by the complainant. The commission holds that refund of the course fee along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.

          In the result the complaint is allowed directing Opposite Parties to refund Rs.39,275/- with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) along with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant.  The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount.

     Sd/-                                                       Sd/-                                         Sd/-

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

Exhibit

A1: Receipt dated 25/06/2018

A2: Receipt dated 07/09/2018

A3: Receipt dated 27/10/2018

A4: Receipt dated 04/01/2019

A5: Receipt dated 04/01/2019

A6: Legal Notice

A7: Postal Acknowledgment

A8: Reply notice

    Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/