BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.175/2014

DATED ON THIS THE 24^th March 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C,

Member

1.     The complainants have filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to refund Rs.23,000/- to each of the complainants and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each of the complainants with costs and such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant’s engineering graduates, intended to pursue higher education abroad in Masters in Business Administration, to secure admission in reputed University have opted for Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) and intended to take professional coaching from MANHATTAN REVIEW, an American Institute online (Web).  The complainants were lured by the advertisement in Bangalore (2^nd opposite party), made enquiries and based on the representations, the complainants decided to join the centre by paying Rs.23,000/- each.  The payment was made by cash and portion of the same by credit card.  Prior to commencement of the classes, the complainants were asked to take an online test.  At that time, the complainants experienced lot of problems and the same were narrated to opposite party No.2, who fail to give a satisfactory reply.  Dissatisfied complainants have sought for refund of the amount paid towards coaching classes and handed over all the study material.  The complainants enquired with MANHATTAN REVIEW (original) USA, came to know that, the opposite party No.2 does not associated with them.  A legal notice caused on 14.12.2014, calling upon to refund the deposited amount, but opposite party No.2 did not choose to reply nor refund the amount.  Hence, alleging the unfair trade practice filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed their common version denying the allegations.  They admitted the approach by the complainants, to avail GMAT training course.  It is denied that, they lured the complainants to join their institution by misleading and by false representations.  It is submitted that opposite party No.1 is offering various courses to secure admissions in Universities abroad and upon satisfying themselves, the complainants have voluntarily joined the opposite party institution and paid Rs.23,000/- each.  The allegation of inadequate test, other facilities, and non-cooperation by the staff was denied as false.  The opposite parties denied all other allegations as false and baseless.  Further, the opposite parties submits that, they never claimed to be an associate of MANHATTAN REVIEW, USA.  The complainants who never wish to continue with the courses offered by opposite parties and fail to satisfy themselves after attending few classes, they voluntarily withdrew from the course abruptly, to make unlawful gain only.  As such, submits that they have not done any unair trade practice and are not liable to pay any claims as sought and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     To establish the facts, both side parties have lead their evidence by filing affidavit and relied on several documents.  Written arguments filed and heard the arguments of both counsels and matter posted for orders.
5.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainants have established the unfair trade practice by the opposite parties for misleading themselves as an associate of MANHATTAN REVIEW (USA) and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainants, Engineering graduates, ambitious to pursue higher studies abroad and to secure admission in good Universities, decided to undertake GMAT.  The opposite party No.2 represented themselves as associate of MANHATTEN REVIEW an American Institute online (WEB).  Attracted by the offers and the advertisements, contacted the opposite party No.2 at Bangalore and joined the course by depositing Rs.23,000/- each towards the course fee. The opposite party No.2 assured that they are the associate MANHATTAN REVIEW (Original-USA based). An online test was held prior to the commencement of the classes.  The complainants faced lot of inconvenience in arrangements, condition, disturbances, non-co-operation and explained the same in detail, was not properly responded by the opposite party No.2.  Subsequently, the classes started, but were not upto the expected level.  The complainants demanded for refund of the fee paid by them, by handing over all the material given to them.  In the meanwhile, the complainants got enquired with the MANHATTAN REVIEW (original) USA, regarding their association with the opposite parties, who inturn replied negatively, stating they do not associate with opposite parties.  Understanding the foul play by the opposite parties, sought for refund of the amount, by filing the complaint sought for the reliefs.
8.    The opposite party No.2 contended that, the complainants have voluntarily approached seeking an admission to the course offered by them.  The complainants themselves satisfied by visiting opposite party No.2 and got admission to the course and have deposited a sum of Rs.23,000/- each.  The allegation of non-co-operation and other problems faced by complainants, while taking the online test is denied as false.  The complainants have attended few classes, as such declined to refund the fee amount.  It is also contended that, they never claimed that, they are the associates of MANHATTAN REVIEW, USA.  The complainants finding themselves difficult to succeed in the qualifying test, have left the course voluntarily and demanded for the refund of the course fee.  So, the allegations of unfair trade practice by opposite parties, denies as false and baseless.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
9.    On perusal of the material on record, the complainants have established that, they joined opposite parties institution to pursue higher studies and to qualify in GMAT, with an intention of higher studies at aboard.  A sum of Rs.23,000/- has been deposited by both towards the course fee.  On dissatisfied with the conduct of the tests and classes and non-co-operation, poor establishments, the complainant’s have decided to withdraw from the course and also enquired with the MANHATTAN REVIEW (original) USA, who confirmed that, they do not have any association with the opposite parties.  As such, the complainant established that, the opposite parties have lured the complainants, by misleading themselves as an associate of USA based institution and thereby they committed the unfair trade practice with the complainants.  In view of the admissions of the opposite parties, it is established that, they are not the associates of MANHATAN REVIEW. The documents, mail correspondence made with opposite parties and the USA based institutions clearly established that, the opposite parties have certainly mislead the complainants and committed unfair trade practice by false assurances and promises.  Relying on the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in ST.Aloysius College Vs Harsharaj Gatty (2016 (1) CPJ 371), the opposite parties though not associated with original institution has mislead the complainants thereby committed unfair trade practice and liable to pay compensation.  As such, the opposite parties, liable to refund the fee collected towards the complainants and compensation for the unfair trade practice committed by them.  Hence, the contention of the opposite parties is hereby not accepted. Acordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally, refund the entire amount of Rs.23,000/- to each of the complainants, along with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of the complaint till this date, to the complainants, within 60 days of this order.  In default to pay penalty of Rs.50/- per day to each of the complainants, until payment made.
3. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs.10,000/- compensation to each of the complainants, towards unfair trade practice and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation to each of the complainants, within 60 days of this order.  Failing to comply, the opposite parties shall jointly and severally shall pay interest at 10% p.a. on the said total sum of Rs.12,000/- to each of the complainant, until compliance is made.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 24^th March 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER