F.A.No.559/2009 against  C.C.No.156/2007, District Forum,

Rangareddy  Dist. .          

Between

E.Santhosh Rao, S/o.Mutyam Rao,

Aged about 26 years, Occ:Student,

R/o.Qr.No.T2-706, G.M.Colony,

Godavari Khani, Ramagundam Mandal,

Karimnagar District.                                        …Appellant/

     Complainant

        And

1.Indian Institute of Hotel Management

And F.T.rep by its Principal,

 T.Chandramohan.

2. Chandrasekar Reddy, Chairman,

     C.S.R.Group of Hotel Management Colleges.

3. Aryan College  of Hotel Management,

    Rep. by its Principal T.Chandra Mohan

4. T.Chandra Mohan, Principal,

    Aryan College of Hotel Management,

(All are R/o.16-11-739/A/1/1/D/1,

  Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad              …Respondents/

                                                                         Opp.parties   

Counsel for the Appellant        :      M/s. K.Venkateswarlu

Counsel for the respondents      :      M/s. M.Hari Prasad Rao

   QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE  SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,   

                        AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,  HON’BLE MEMBER

                WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD  DAY OF NOVEMBER,     

       TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.

         (Typed to dictation of   Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
                                                ****

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.156/07 on the file of Dist Forum, R.R.Dist. the complainant preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as stated in the case are that the complainant approached opposite party no.1 and joined P.G.Diploma in Hotel Management  and paid an amount of Rs.36,500/- towards course fee and was allotted an I.D.Card and placed in Aryan College of Hotel Management (OP.3) which is a part of opp.party no.2 Hotel  Management College. The complainant was sent for Industrial Training as part of the course for 22 weeks where he suffered serious ill health.   The course was not completed within the stipulated time  and when the complainant questioned opposite party no.1 he was informed that the examination was to be conducted by O.U./Setwin.    Vexed with their attitude, the complainant got issued notice to the opp.parties to refund his fees but did not receive any response. The complainant submits that he lost his career opportunities and the opp.parties failed to clarify the affiliation and examination pattern.  Opposite party no.3 issued a Bonafide Certificate on 1.8.2007 for the academic year 2006-2007, but no final examination was conducted. Opposite party issued a reply notice to the complainant on 11.9.07 stating that on humanitarian grounds a course certificate was issued on 21.8.07, even in the absence of any examination having been conducted. Opposite party no.1 issued two course certificates – a memorandum of marks and  a course certificate.  There is no proper affiliation to opposite party no .1 and hence the complaint seeking direction to the opp.parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,74,766/- for mental agony and loss of academic year together refund of fees with interest  and costs.

        Opposite parties 1 to 4 filed written version    stating that the complainant paid the prescribed course fee but the hall ticket for the panel examination was not issued to the complainant only because the complainant failed to complete  the industrial training  within  the prescribed period.  Opposite parties  further submitted that they issued the course certificate to the complainant only after the conduction of the examination. They deny that the complainant lost career opportunities on account of their Institute not having proper affiliation. They submit that they got the appropriate affiliation and permission to run the Hotel Management course and hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and seek dismissal of the complaint with costs.

        The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A14 and B1 and B2 dismissed the complaint.

        Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

        The facts not in dispute are that the complainant joined opposite party no.1 College  of Hotel Management and was accommodated in opposite party no..3 College i.e. Aryan College of Hotel Management, Dilsukhnagar.  Ex.A1 is the prospectus of the opp.party   which shows that the complainant joined P.G. course in Hotel Management which is the one year course.  In the Brochure it is clearly stipulated that it is affiliated to Setwin i.e. it is franchise of Setwin. Ex.A3 is the I.D. Card issued to the complainant which is not in dispute. Exs.A4 to A7 are the receipts for the payments made by the complainant towards the course and  hostel fees etc. . Ex.A8 is the medical  prescription dated 3.11.06 showing that the complainant was suffering from sepsis of toes and was advised rest.  Ex.A10 is the memorandum of marks issued to the complainant wherein he secured 70% marks and Ex.A11 is a certificate issued in the name of the complainant by opposite party no.1 for the academic year 2006-07.  It is the complainant’s case that this certificate was given without conducting final examination and that there was no proper affiliation. He even got issued a legal notice Ex.A12 to the opp.parties calling upon them  to refund his fee and pay compensation for which opposite party no.1 replied vide Ex.A14  stating that the course certificate was given to him on humanitarian ground inspite of the fact that he did not complete his industrial training.  The contention of the appellant/complainant that the Institute did not have proper affiliation is unsustainable in the light of Ex.A1 prospectus  page 9  wherein it is stated that the institute  is a franchise of Setwin. The complainant himself admitted in his complaint that    he  could not complete that industrial training  as he suffered serious ill health at Ramoji Film City. We find force in the contention of the respondent/opp.party that the complainant could not appear for the final examination and could not get certificate from the affiliated authorities i.e. Setwin because he did not complete his industrial training and hence he could not appear for final examination.  It is not in dispute that Ex.A10 marks memo  and Ex.A11 certificate were issued  to the appellant/complainant. In the light of the admission by the complainant that he himself could not complete the industrial training and also the documentary evidence Ex.A1 brochure which stipulates that opposite party no.1 institute is a franchise of Setwin, the contention of the complainant that the opp.party misled him into believing that the institute is affiliated to the university is unsustainable. It is pertinent to note that the complainant did not complete his industrial training and  that therefore did not appear for  the final examination  and opposite party no.1 institute issued ‘course certificate’ on humanitarian grounds and the complainant could not obtain the certificate from Setwin as he did not sit for  the  final examination and therefore we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the opp.parties and we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.

In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order of the Dist. Forum. No costs.

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                        MEMBER

Pm*                                                                  Dt. 23.11.2011.