BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
C.C. No. 51/2008
Between:
Karnakoti Upender Kumar
S/o. Balaji, Age: 21 years
H.No. 9-8-28, Beside Merimandiram
Yellamabazar, Warangal. *** Complainant
And
1. Fly Tech Aviation Academy
Rep. by its Executive Director
Capt. Mamatha, R/o. 1-8-303/33
Nagam Towers, 3rd & 4th floors.
NTR Cirle, Minister Road
Secunderabad- 500 003.
2. The Director, Director of Airworthiness
Govt. of India, Civil Aviation Department
Hyderabad Air Port, Hyderabad.
3. The Director General,
O/o. Director General of Civil Aviation
Opp. Safdharjung Airport,
New Delhi – 110 003. *** Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant: M/s. V. Premchand
Counsel for the OPs: M/s. B. Vijayasen Reddy (OP1)
M/s. V. Vinod Kumar (Ops 2 & 3)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) This is a complaint filed against the opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs for loss of future prospects, and mental agony with interest and costs.
2)) The case of the complainant in brief is that he joined as hanger student in the aviation academy of opposite party No. 1. Opposite parties 2 & 3 are the aviation authorities who had granted approval to run the academy. Opposite party No. 1 had offered AME course and other aeronautical courses of aircraft maintenance engineering for heavy aircraft/jet engine hanger side with six semesters in three years duration course. He was admitted in the said course having collected an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 28.5.2008, and Rs. 35,000/- towards first semester fee on 7.6.2005. The fee shall vary from second semester onwards as per the choice of the course. While Rs. 35,000/- is the fee towards Light Aircraft course (LA/JE) Rs. 50,000/- towards Heavy Aircraft & Jet Engine (HA/JE). He was taken in HA/JE course. He was insisted to stay in the hostel. Accordingly he had been attending to the classes and underwent practical training. They collected Rs. 50,000/- towards second semester fee for HA/JE. He passed up to 4th semester and could not appear the 5th semester examination. When he sought for application for attending the 5th semester examination it was refused. On the other hand it had insisted him to switch over from HA/JE to LA/JE. He was also informed that it would be very difficult to get through other semester examinations. It did not take other batch mates to continue HA/JE course without any reason. As per rules of aviation academy every candidate who intended to take AME course should be qualified with 55% of marks in the intermediate (MPC) Contrarily he was admitted though he had secured only 47.66% in intermediate. It has also assured that it would make him to complete the course stating that the said percentage was sufficient for the said course. Basing on the assurances, he joined in the above said course. He had paid Rs. 50,000/- towards IInd semester fee and hostel fee etc. In all he paid Rs. 3,41,000/-. When opposite party no. 1 was insisting to shift to LA/JE course, on enquiries he found that opposite party No. 1 was not having approval and permission from Opposite Parties 2 & 3 to conduct HA/JE course for hanger side. They could not show the approval or permission to conduct HA/JE course. He got a legal notice issued on 13.8.20008 for which opposite party No. 1 gave reply mis-representing the facts. The allegation that HA/JE was meant for regular students and not for hanger side students and that he belonged to later category not entitled to continue is not correct. Evidently, opposite party did not have proper approval or renewal for running the course. Due to mis-representation, he had lost valuable three years time besides huge amount. He could have completed the heavy aircraft hanger side course from any of the approved aviation academies. He could have got a job of minimum salary of Rs. 1 lakh per month. Opposite Party No. 1 had adopted unfair trade practice. He had suffered loss of future prospects and mental agony which he assessed at Rs. 50 lakhs and therefore prayed that the said amount be paid with interest @ 18% p.a., together with costs.
3) Opposite Party No. 1 filed counter denying each and every allegation made by the complainant. It alleged that the complainant was joined as a hanger student. He has shown interest to join Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME) course with six semesters in three years duration. He was admitted on 28.5.2005 after collecting Rs. 10,000/- towards admission fee, and Rs. 35,000/- as semester fee. It never compelled the complainant to stay in the hostel. It did not permit the students to withdraw from the hostel till the end of academic year in view of illegal and unhealthy activities and other untoward incidents were taking place involving the students of the academy. AME course is common for all the faculty streams viz., light aircraft, avionics and heavy aircraft/jet engine. The course fee for second semester for heavy aircraft hanger side is Rs. 50,000/-. For a candidate to admit in AME he should get 55% marks in Intermediate (MPC). The complainant has got 47.66% in Intermediate. He was not qualified for admission into the AME course which comprised of six semesters. As per rules he was given admission for AME apprentice attached to the hanger for training. He has option to take practical training experience for three years at the hanger. After two years, he can qualify for taking papers 1 & 2 as prescribed by DGCA License Examination and thereafter qualify for paper-3 on the completion of 3 years practical training and hanger experience, he was eligible to write. However, he failed to clear paper-2. Therefore it had given required eligibility for writing papers which are essential to acquire DGCA license. Thereafter a further 6 months practical training on heavy training on Heavy Aircraft/Jet Engine would entitle the student to take paper-3 in HA/JE stream. He was given the benefit of the additional classes in HA/JE stream as per his choice to help and prepare for HS/JE paper-3 after three years. The payment of fee was according to the semesters that he was attending. He himself had dropped out from 5th semester of regular AME class and hanger training in the month of October, 2007 (July to December, 2007 session). Thereafter he never attended the classes. He neither completed the 3 year mandatory hanger practical training nor completed the 5 semesters by appearing for the examination in the month of December, 2007. It had requisite permission and certification for HA/JE course vide DGCA letter No. Q3/HAA/1300 Dt. 3.9.2004. It never pressurised the complainant to switch over from HA/JE course to, LA/JE course. When a legal notice was issued, it had given proper reply. It had never mis-represented nor mis-led him, nor adopted any unfair trade practice. He was not entitled to any compensation, and therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) Opposite Parties 2 & 3 equally resisted the case. The complainant was joined in opposite party No. 1 academy as a trainee technician on hanger side but not as a regular AME student. His name was not listed in the admitted candidates list submitted by the institute to Regional Airworthiness Office vide letter No. FAA/AME/daw/07/350 in August, 2005. He did not pass the examinations up to 4th semester in AME course. He having secured 46.77% in Intermediate (MPC) was not eligible to join as AME student in any AME training institute. He can only join as a hanger technician in any approved aircraft management organization but not in AME training institute. Opposite Party No. 1 has obtained approval from it for imparting training Heavy Aircraft (HA) and Jet Engine (JE) vide letter No. Q-3/FAA/1300 Dt. 3.9.2004. Normally to any aircraft operator/owner, DGCA grants approval for maintenance of aircraft but not for hanger side AME training course. In fact its office regularly ensure the compliance of CAR requirements by Aircraft Maintenance Organization (AMO). Any violation will be intimated by local DGCA office for corrections. The complainant was not aware about the functions of DGCA. These candidates can directly appear for DGCA BAMEL examinations as per their acquired aviation experience. The requirements of these candidates will be exclusively monitored by the Quality Control Manager of the AMO. The complainant had not made any claim against them, therefore they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A71 marked. Refuting his evidence Opposite Parties filed their affidavit evidence and got Ex. B1 to B12 marked.
6) The points that arise for consideration are :
i) Whether the complainant can be admitted as AME – HA/JE course?
ii) Whether the complainant was admitted to a wrong course by mis-
representation?
iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation?
iv) If so to what relief?
7) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant was admitted in AME course. According to him he was admitted in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME) for Heavy Aircraft/Jet engine (HA/JE) hanger side with six semesters in three years duration. During the 6th semester he was informed that in order to take AME course he should be qualified with 55% of marks in Intermediate (MPC) contrarily Op1 allowed him despite the fact that he got 47.66% in Intermediate course. It was on the assurance that he could complete AME course at hanger side for which said percentage of the complainant is sufficient. He paid Rs. 50,000/- per semester towards Heavy Aircraft hanger side up to 5th semester. However, after 5th semester OP1 bluntly refused to continue him in the said course with an option to switch over to Light Aircraft course for which he did not agree. Having given admission in HA/JE course now it has insisted him to join in LA/JE course. Thus he was mislead and cheated. He also alleged that Op1 had no permission to impart HA/JE hanger side course, due to which, he could not apply for the jobs, and thus lost not only three years of education but also future prospects, the loss of which he assessed at Rs. 50 lakhs.
8) Evidently, the complainant was admitted in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME) for Heavy Aircraft/Jet Engine (HA/JE) hanger side with six semesters three year duration course. According to it, since the complainant was not qualified for AME as he could not get 55% marks in Intermediate (MPC) he was not taken directly for admission into AME course. But he was given admission into “AME as general candidate apprentice attached to the hanger side for training.” According to it a student has option to take practical training experience for three years at the hanger. After two years, he can qualify for taking paper-1 and paper-2 as prescribed by DGCA License Examination and thereafter qualify for paper-3 on completion of three year practical training and hanger experience as per Civil Aviation requirements series ‘L’ part-II para 5.3 General Candidates. Even now he could not clear the examinations and therefore he was not eligible for studying AME - HA/JE hanger side.
9) Op2 confirmed, that the complainant was joined as ‘trainee technician on Hanger side’ but not as a regular AME student in the approved AME school. His joining as hanger side student do not have any relevance to the AME institute. He was not in the admitted candidates list submitted by Op1 to Regional Airworthiness Office vide letter No. FAA/AME/daw/07/350 in August, 2005. It denied that the complainant was regular student of FAA/AME training institute.
10) This fact was not disputed by Op1 in its affidavit evidence after Ops 2 & 3 filed their counter. Admittedly Op1 collected the amount as if he was a student of AME HA/JE course. Out of Rs. 3,41,000/- collected an amount of Rs. 2,50,500/- was collected towards admission fee, processing fee, semester fee, caution deposit etc. and the remaining Rs. 90,000/- was collected towards hostel fee. In Ex. A2, A5, A12, A19, A29 receipts issued for Rs. 10,000/- , Rs. 35,000/-, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- respectively it indicated that it was for AME – HA/JE course. At no time it was mentioned that he was taken as “AME as general candidate apprentice attached to the hanger side for training”.
11) At the cost of repetition, we may state that the fee was collected as though he was admitted for AME- HA/JE for imparting training in HA/JE course. Op2 at para -4 of its counter alleged that “ the complainant has got the average marks in 10+2 (MPC) Intermediate i.e., 47.66% only hence the complainant is not eligible for joining as AME student in any AME training institute, however, he can join as a hanger technician in any approved Aircraft Maintenance Organization (AMO) but not in AME training institute.” Undoubtedly, Op1 by admitting him in AME – HA/JE course acted illegally and contrary to the rules. Op1 did not choose to file the rules wherein a student has the option to take practical training experience for 3 years at the hanger. After 2 years he can qualify for taking paper-1 and paper-2 as prescribed by DGCA License examination and thereafter qualify for paper-3 on the completion of 3 years practical training and hanger experience. To get over its admission to AME- HA/JE course – Op1 must have taken the above contention.
12) Op1 asserts that it had requisite permission and certification for HA/JE course vide DGCA letter No. Q3/HAA/1300 Dt. 3.9.2004. Op2 at para -4 of its counter had categorically mentioned that “ Normally to any aircraft operator/owner, DGCA grants approval for maintenance of aircraft but not for hanger side AME training course.”
(emphasis ours)
13) Assuming without admitting that Op1 owns aircraft ‘Beech Baron B-58’ of 1976, having permit valid up to vide Ex. A69, but evidently it cannot impart training for using the air craft for AME training course. Op1 could not show that it had approval for imparting training by using the said aircraft. The complainant alleged that Op2 ought to have perused the approval of FAA lest the careers of students like him would be jeopardised. Op2 had categorically stated that their office regularly ensure the compliance of CAR requirements by Aircraft Maintenance Organization (AMO). Any violation to these rules by the AMOs the necessary action will be intimated by local DGCA office for corrections. The complainant may not be aware about the functions of DGCA. Further the hanger side AME course given by the AMO by virtue of their aircraft maintenance approval held from the DGCA. These technicians/candidates can directly appear for DGCA BAMEL examinations as per their acquired aviation experience. The requirements of these candidates would be exclusively monitored by the Quality Control Manager of the AMO.” The complainant did not implead Aircraft Maintenance Organization (AMO) to meets its contention.
14) To sum up, the complainant was admitted for AME – HA/JE hanger side by collecting the fee up to 5th semester including the admission fee, processing fee, semester fee. In all he paid Rs. 2,50,500/-. By its own admission, OP1 is not entitled to admit the complainant in such a course nor Op1 was entitled to impart the training in AME- HA/JE course. When it is claiming as AME training institute, and has been collecting the amount from students in AME course, Op1 was aware of the implications. Since the complainant was not qualified and therefore did not include his name in the list submitted to the Regional Airworthiness Office in August, 2005 vide Ex. A4. A candidate could not have been aware of all these implications. He was never informed that he was admitted as ‘ AME as general candidate apprentice attached to the hanger side for training.’ All the documents show indisputably, that he was admitted as regular AME student. That was the reason why Op2 has mentioned that “his joining as hanger side student do not have any relevance to the AME institute.” All through he was informed that he passed up to 4th semester AME course. He was never a regular student of FAA/AME training institute. In para -6 of its counter Op1 it stated:
“ The complainant had dropped out from the 5th semester of regular Aircraft Maintenance Engineering class and hanger training in the month of October, 2007 (July to December, 2007 session) and thereafter attended the classes, hanger and due to said reason he did not write the semester examinations scheduled in December, 2007.”
15) It may be stated herein that Op2 had categorically stated that what all the DGCA could grant is approval for maintenance of aircraft but not for hanger side AME training course. Undoubtedly, taking advantage of ignorance of the candidates, it was using whatever terminology it likes though, such a terminology is not existing or approved either by DGCA or AMO. Neither he could be joined in AME training institute, nor on hanger side AME training course. It is clear that he could be taken as hanger technician in any approved aircraft maintenance organization, but not in AME training institute.
16) Undoubtedly, Op1 had misled the complainant, admitted him in AME – HA/JE course collected the amounts without any authority. This undoubtedly amounts to deficiency in service. However, the complainant could not prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of Ops 2 & 3 in this regard. In fact they have clarified stating that the complainant could not have been admitted into the said course as Op1 was not authorised to admit and in fact in one of its communications Op1 did not itself send the name of the complainant that he was admitted as AME student.
17) Op1 having collected these amounts and made him to study a futile course for three years, he was entitled to refund of the amount. However, in regard to hostel fee, we are not inclined to order refund as he had enjoyed the facility whatever that was provided.
18) The complainant is hardly aged about 21 years. He could not prosecute the studies as Op1 could not impart training for which he was admitted. He did not file any document to prove that after competition of the said course, he would have got minimum of Rs. 1 lakh remuneration per month, in any of the aircraft organizations. However, he would have undoubtedly suffered mental agony. No doubt he has passed Intermediate examination. Obviously, he was eligible for pursuing a job of hanger technician. Op2 has stated that these technicians could directly appear for DGCA BAMEL examinations as per their acquired aviation experience. However, OP1 should not have collected amounts from these students luring them with higher jobs for which it had no authority to admit. It could have printed the condition that he should have minimum 55% marks in Intermediate (MPC) in the applications. All these documents would show that Op1 had admitted him without any pre-condition, in the sense that he could be admitted in three year AME HA/JE course. After two years, he can qualify for taking paper-1 and paper-2 as prescribed by DGCA License Examination and thereafter qualify for paper-3 on completion of three year practical training and hanger experience. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Op1 is guilty and therefore liable to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him besides mental agony which we compute at 10 times the fee collected by them. We believe that would compensate the loss he suffered. He would not get any job with this qualification. Un-necessarily her pursued the education which has no value. The complainant himself should blame for not producing evidence to show where his colleagues were joined and the salary they were earning. We are of the opinion that damages at Rs. 20 lakhs is modest in the circumstances of the case.
19) In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the Op1 to pay Rs. 20 lakhs towards damages. Further Op1 is directed to refund the fee of Rs. 2,50,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint i.e., from 27.9.2008 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The complaint against Ops 2 & 3 is dismissed but without costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
COMPLAINANT: OPPOSITE PARTIES
None None
Exhibits marked for complainant:
Ex.A-1 Application Fee Receipt Original, dt. 28-05-2005
Ex.A-2 Miscellaneous receipt original, dt. 28-05-2005
Ex.A-3 Proceessing fee receipt original, dt. 07-06-2005
Ex.A-4 Hostel Fee receipt caution deposit, dt. 07-6-2009
Ex.A-5 miscellaneous receipt original (I Semister) (HA/JE),
dt. 07-06-2005
Ex.A-6 Hostel fee original receipt, dt. 7-6-2005
Ex.A-7 Hostel fee original receipt Xerox, dt. 10-8-2005
Ex.A-8 Hostel fee original receipt, dt. 21-9-2005
Ex.A-9 Hostel fee original receipt, dt. 20-10-2005
Ex.A-10 Hostel fee original receipt, dt. 15-11-2005
Ex.A-11 Hostel fee original receipt, dt. 07-12-2005
Ex.A-12 Fee receipt original (II Semistar) (HA/JE),dt.17-1-06
Ex.A-13 Hostel Fee receipt original 13-2-2006
Ex.A-14 Hostel Fee receipt original dt. 08-03-2006
Ex.A-15 Hostel Fee receipt original dt.03-04-2006
Ex.A-16 Hostel Fee receipt original dt.12-5-2006
Ex.A-17 Hostel Fee receipt original dt.13-6-06
Ex.A-18 Hostel Fee rceipt original,dt.21-08-2006
Ex.A-19 Fee receipt original (III Semistar) (HA/JE),dt.07-8-06
Ex.A-20 Hostel Fee receipt original 05-10-2006
Ex.A-21 Hostel Fee receipt original dt. 10-11-2006
Ex.A-22 Hostel Fee receipt original dt.18-11-2006
Ex.A-23 Hostel Fee receipt original dt.04-12-2006
Ex.A-24 Hostel Fee receipt original dt.08-01-07
Ex.A-25 Fee receipt original (IV Semistar) (HA/JE),dt.18-01-2007
Ex.A-26 Hostel Fee receipt original 28-02-2007
Ex.A-27 Hostel Fee receipt original dt. 05-5-2007
Ex.A-28 Hostel Fee receipt original dt.23-06-2007
Ex.A-29 Fee receipt original (V Semistar) (HA/JE) dt. 05-09-2007
Ex.A-30 Hostel Fee receipt original 16-07-2007
Ex.A-31 Hostel Fee receipt original dt. 07-9-2007
Ex.A-32 Hostel Fee receipt original dt.26-11-2007
Ex.A-33 Hostel Fee receipt original dt.27-12-07
Ex.A-34 Hostel Fee rceipt original,dt.31-1-2008
Ex.A-35 Admit Card Original,dt. 04-6-2007
Ex.A-36 Admit Card Original,dt. Dec-2006
Ex.A-37 Admit Card Original,dt. 21-12-2005
Ex.A-38 Admit Card Original,dt. Jan- June
Ex.A-39 Course Enrollment AME, dt. 21-6-2005
Ex.A-40 Shortage of Attendence dt. 21-11-2005
Ex.A-41 Hostel withdrawl of students from the Academy Hostel,
dt. 07-12-2007
Ex.A-42 AME apprentiship period K. Upender Kumar(Original)
dt. 09-2-2007
Ex.A-43 Application for passports students of our institute Bonafide
cetificates original
Ex.A-44 No dues certificate original, dt. 06-02-2008
Ex.A-45 deposit settlement letter original dt. 07-02-2008
Ex.A-46 Minister letter original, dt. 20-012-2007
Ex.A-47 Semister Examination performance session I semester
(original) dt. 07-02-2006
Ex.A-48 Semister Examination performance session I semester
(original) dt. 17-01-2007
Ex.A-49 Certificate of approval to OP.No.1 Xerox, dt. 18-3-1997
Ex.A-50 Computer number application, Xerox
Ex.A-51 Computer number application Xerox dt. 10-02-2007
Ex.A-52 reply legal notice original page 1, dt. 06-09-2008
Ex.A-53 reply legal notice original page 2 and 3 dt. 06-09-2008
Ex.A-54 legal notice o/c. dt. 13-08-2008
Ex.A-55 AME Licence examination result card, July 2007
Ex.A-56 Details of the Air Craft with Registration number VT FAL
(Original)
Ex.A-57 Details of Air Craft with registration number VT FAO
Ex.A-58 Submission of CA – 9 (Rev-06-04-2005) Four Students for
AME exam june 2007
Ex.A-59 Flytech Aviation Academy Computer name Xerox,
dt. 10-02-2007
Ex.A-60 State Bank of India DD Xerox, payable at DGCA, New Delhi,
Op.NO.3, dt. 10-04-2007
Ex.A-61 Certificate Xerox, dt. 26-11-2007
Ex.A-62 Application AME return papers xerox
Ex.A-63 Allotment Computer Xerox dt. 03-04-2007
Ex.A-64 Internet Xerox dt. 27-07-2007
Ex.A-65 Internet Xerox, dt. 24-4-2008
Ex.A-66 Receipt of legal notice, original postal receipt. dt. 14-08-2008
Ex.A-67 Postal Acknowledgement original, dt. 22-08-2008
Ex.A-68 Heave Air Craft for Schedule operators for permit holders
(Airlines Side) two pages internet copy, dt. 08-08-2008
Ex.A-69 List of Non-schedule operators permit holders in light
aircraft side internet copy dt. 29-08-2008
Ex.A-70 Academy side permit Xerox internet copy
Ex.A-71 OC of broucher of OP.1
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:
Ex.B-1 Certificate of registration dt ; 3.4.2008
Ex.B-2 Certificate of Approval from DGCA dt : 18.3.1997.
Ex.B-3 AirCraft registration certificate ( VT-EEJ)
EX B4 Details of Aircraft with registration number VT-EQZ
EX B5 Certificate of Registration VT-FAL
EX B6 Certificate of Registration VT –FAM
EX B7 Certificate of Registration VT –FAN
EX B8 Certificate of Registration VT –FAO
EX B9 Certificate of Registration VT –SAM
EX B10 Certificate of Registration VT –SSM
EX B11 Certificate of Registration VT –FAS
EX B12 Certificate of Registration VT -FAV
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 30. 04. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
