BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 18th day of January 2018
Filed on : 13-10-2014
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.768/2014
Between
1. Shalin C. Shaji, : Complainants
S/o. Shaji C.N.,
Res. at Chakkanalil house, (By Adv. Vinay Menon V,
Moothakunnam, 2nd floor, Lillys' Arcade, Spice's
North Paravoor, Street North End, Kaloor,
Ernakulam. Ernakulam-18)
2. Miss Theres Raphel,
D/o. K.D. Raphel,
Res. at Karottapuram house,
Okkal P.O., Chelamattom,
Perumbavoor,Ernakulam.
3. Miss Anu Davis,
D/o. Davis P.V., Puthussery house,
Nayathodu P.O., Chettikode,
Angamali, Ernakulam.
And
1. M/s. Cochin International Airport : Opposite parties
Ltd., Kochi Airport P.O., (1st and 2nd o.p. by Adv.Joson
Nedumbassery, Manavalan,M/s. Menon & Pai,
Ernakulam-683 111., I.S. Press Road, Ekm,Kochi-18)
Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. M/s. Cochin International Aviation
Services Ltd., Kochi Airport P.O.,
Nedumbassery, Ernakulam-683 111.,
rep. by its Managing Director.
3. M/s. Kairali Aviation Aeronautical (By Adv. R.S. Kalkura, “Srivathsa”
Engineering Pvt. Ltd., 61/335, Judges Avenue, Kaloor,
Geetha Bhavan, Kochi-17)
Sanathanapuram P.O.,
Kalarcode,
Alappuzha-688 033.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
The complainants are 3 students, who were lured by the advertisement issued by the 1st opposite party regarding the opening of an Aeronautical Maintenance Institute by the 1st opposite party and joined the course on remittance of an amount of Rs. 1,77,334/- for 3 years course, which was commenced on 30-08-2010. The course was scheduled for completion by September 2013. However, the Institute was closed on 22-07-2011, presumably the closure was effected as the Director General of Civil Aviation had refused to renew the approval for the institute. The complainant, thereafter approached the Hon'ble High Court, with Writ Petition No. WPC 21587/2011 seeking a direction, inter-alia to the opposite parties in this complaint re-commence the course. However, Writ Petition was dismissed as not pressed on 29-05-2014. The present complaint is filed thereafter seeking a direction to the opposite parties to return the course fee of Rs. 1,77,334/- each paid by the complainants towards fees and to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings which was estimated by the complainants at Rs. 2,10,000/-.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties, who appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a version contending inter-alia as follows:
- The 2nd opposite party contended that the 1st opposite party has not started any institution in the name and style of M/s. CIAL Institute, which offered education to the complainants as alleged in the above complaint .The 1st opposite party, M/s. CIAL also did not approve the 3rd opposite party as a partner, who carried out the functions of the training institution. The 2nd opposite party and M/s. Kairali Aviation Pvt. Ltd., had entered into a tripartite agreement with the 3rd opposite party, wherein the role and responsibilities of the 2nd opposite party was only to provide 8 class rooms and required infrastructure in the form of Electricity, Water, Road and drainage etc. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. The complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.
4. The 3rd opposite party M/s. Kairali Aviation Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Allappuzha, resisted the complaint contending that the 3rd opposite party was registered as a subsidiary company of M/s. Cochin International Air port Ltd., who had proposed to set up the Air Craft Maintenance Engineering Institute by name CIAL. The 3rd opposite party initiated the special proceedings for the 1st batch to commence the course . The 3rd opposite party had also spent lot of money for setting up the lab and equipment in the class rooms with best facilities and equipment. The 3rd opposite party was compelled to discontinue the course and taking up fresh students in place only on account of the termination of agreement as between the 1st opposite party and the 3rd opposite party and there was no fault on the part of the 3rd opposite party in the notional down of the institution. The 3rd opposite party had collected fees only for one academic year from the students and in turn, the classes have been conducted without interruption in that academic year. The complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.
5. The following issues were settled for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
- Is the complainant has proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
- If so what must be the quantum of compensation?
- Reliefs and costs
6. The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence Exbts. A1 to A6 on the side of the complainants who did not adduce any oral evidence. Opposite parties 1 and 2 also did not adduce any oral evidence. However, Exbts. B1 to B18 were marked and DW1 was examined for 3rd opposite party.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Issue No. i. The cause of action for the complaint arose during 2011, when the institute was admittedly closed on. This complaint was filed on 13-10-2014 after 3 years from the date of cause of action. The complainant had filed I.A. 900/2014 along with the complaint to condone the delay occurred in filing the complaint and that petition was allowed on the principles laid down in Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Estate (1995) 3 SCC 285 Institute laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the question of limitation does not apply to this case at present, having been condone the delay already.
9. Issue No. ii. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties had started the course and discontinued the course mid-way and the complainants have suffered both financially and also in respect of their career. Though, compensation has been claimed against the 3rd opposite party arrayed in the party array on the allegation that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants have not produced any documents to substantiate that the opposite parties were responsible for the discontinuance of the course. Exbt. A1 is the true copy of the prospectus allegedly issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. We have gone through Ext. A1, and we find no indication therein that the 1st , 2nd and 3rd opposite parties had anything to do with the collection of the fee from the complainants. Exbt. A2 is the photo copy of fee receipt issued by CIAL institute in favour of the 1st opposite party on 01-09-2010 and 29-09-2010 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,27,334/- respectively. Exbt. A4 is the true photo copy of the fee receipt issued at CIAL Institute, Ernakulam in favour of the 3rd complainant Kumari Ann Davis. Exbt. A5 is the D.D. issued in favour of CIAL Institute may be for and on behalf of the 2nd complainant. Exbt. A3 is the true copy of the fee receipt in favour of the 2nd complainant for having paid Rs. 1,27,334/- . It is pertinent to note that the entire fees were remitted to the account of CIAL Institute, who is not a party to the current complaint. There is nothing in evidence to show and no documents have been produced by the complainant to substantiate this allegation that any of the parties have anything to do with the collection of the course fee from the complainants. The complainants also did not attempt to get into the witness box to adduce any oral evidence to establish their mental agony or their sufferings to substantiate their claim for complainant on that count.
- The opposite parties produced Exbts. B1 to B18 documents , mainly communications inter-se the opposite parties with CIAL institute. Those documents substantially support the allegations of the opposite parties in their version that they had nothing to do with the complainant in the matter of providing service. We therefore, find that in the absence of CIAL Institute, Cochin in the party array, who had allegedly collected fees from the complainants for providing education service, the opposite parties in the complaint can not be burdened with an order for refund of payment of compensation as claimed for. The issue is therefore found against the complainant.
11. Issue No. iii. Having found issue number 2 against the complainant the question of payment of compensation does not arise and this issue is also found against the complainant.
12. Issue No. iv. Having found all the three issues Supra against the complainant, the complaint deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 18th day of January 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of prospectus
A2 : Copy of receipt dt. 29-09-2010
A3 : True copy of receipt dt 28-01-2011
A4 : True copy of receipt
dt. 28-10-2010
A5 : Copy of D.D for an amount
of Rs. 50,000/-
A6 : True copy of WP(C) No. 21587
of 2011 (W)
Opposite party's exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : True copy of letter dt. 30-06-2010
B2 : True copy of letter dt. 12-07-2010
B3 : True copy of letter dt. 21-12-2010
B4 : True copy of letter dt. 23-12-2010
B5 : Copy of Cheque dt. 18-08-2010
B6 : True copy of letter dt. 04-4-2011
B7 : True copy of letter dt. 05-04-2011
B8 : True copy of letter dt. 19-04-2011
B9 : True copy of letter dt. 25-05-2011
B10 : True copy of letter dt. 14-06-2011
B11 : True copy of letter dt. 14-06-2011
B12 : True copy of letter dt. 08-07-2011
B13 : True copy of order of CDRF,
Ekm. dt. 21-12-2013
B14 : Copy of request for proposal
B15 : Copy of agreement
B16 : Copy of Supplementary
agreement dt. 12-03-2009
A17 : Copy of application under Right to
Information Act.
A18 : Copy of award of the Arbitral
Tribunal
Depositions
PW1 : Col. (Retd) K.R. Sasikumar
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
