BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 14/09/2009

Date of Order : 30/06/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 490/2009

Between

And

C.C. No. 558/2009

Between

And

C O M M O N O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. At the instance of the opposite parties vide order in I.A. No. 543/2010 dated 16-11-2010, this Forum allowed joint trial of the above cases treating C.C. No. 558/2009 as the leading case. Since, the matter involved in the above cases are similar and the opposite parties are the same, we are disposing off the above complaints by this common order.

2. The case of the complainant in C.C. No. 558/2009 is as follows :

The opposite parties offered the complainant 6 months training in Clinical Research and on successful completion a Post Graduate Diploma in Clinical Research (PGDCR) with the York College of Industry and Technology Toronto, Canada and after a further 6 months internship, the complainant was assured placement with a starting salary of Rs. 15,000/- to 20,000/- per month. The total fee was Rs. 4,15,000/- which includes registration fee of Rs. 15,000/-. The opposite parties assured that the course fee of Rs. 4 lakhs would be arranged by them from Bank of Baroda, Marine Drive Branch, Ernakulam and the payment would commence after getting the placement. Accordingly, the opposite parties issued admission letter on 17-09-2007 and the complainant paid the registration fee to the opposite parties on 20-09-2007. Thereafter, the opposite parties informed that the arrangement for study and the award of diploma would be with Prince Edward College, Canada instead of York College of Industry and Technology. The complainant was not given any option but to continue with the studies, since he had paid the course fee of Rs. 4 lakhs. The complainant after having completed the studies was neither awarded the promised PGDCR by the Prince Edward College nor was the results of the examination published. The opposite parties issued only a course completion certificate as against their promise of issuance of PGDCR. The opposite parties arranged training to the complainant in Angamaly Little Flower Hospital drawing a stipend of Rs. 4,500/-. In August 2009, the complainant learnt that the opposite parties have defrauded hundreds of students. Due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered severe mental agony. Due to the unfair trade practice by the opposite parties, the complainant was induced to part with Rs. 15,000/- as registration fees, burdened with the repayment of loan of Rs. 4 lakhs with interest, he has also lost his valuable time of one year. He assesses the loss at Rs. 8 lakhs. He is entitled to get Rs. 8 lakhs with interest together with Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

3. The complainant in C.C. No. 490/2009 has also raised similar set of facts and claimed the very same amount.

4. In C.C. No. 558/2009, the 2^nd opposite party filed version along with an affidavit stating that the version is filed for and on behalf of other opposite parties as well.

The opposite parties had offered the complainant with the Post Graduate Diploma in Clinical Research conducted by York College of Industry and Technology, Toronto, Canada, however, the course undergone by the complainant is offered by Prince Edward College, Canada. The management of these institutions are the same and the course offered are also the same. This was informed to the complainant and had given option either to continue with the course or opt out. The complainant had never approached the opposite parties and raised any complaint but wanted to continue with the course as he was aware that the above two institutions are one and the same. The results of the course in which the complainant studied has not been published so far. The opposite parties are only facilitating the study offered by the institution to the complainant. All matters regarding the conduct of the examination and award of diploma are directly managed by the institute over which, these opposite parties have no control and it is informed by the institute that the convocation ceremony is scheduled to be held on 26-01-2010. From the profile of the complainant, it can be seen that the complainant obtained the present job just because of PGDCR course offered by the opposite parties and because of the reference he made about the institute of the opposite parties. So, the contention of the complainant that he was not given the promised permanent placement with monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- is untenable. The present attempt of the complainant is only to defraud the Bank. So far 19 batches of students have completed the course offered by the opposite parties and none of the students have raised any grievance and all of them are profitably placed. The complaint is devoid of any merit and is only liable to be dismissed.

5. In C.C. 490/2009, the opposite parties have filed a separate version raising the similar contentions in C.C. No. 558/2009 as well.

6. The complainant in C.C. No. 490/2009 was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A11 were marked on his side. The complainant in C.C. No. 558/2009 was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A13 were marked. The 3^rd opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B24 were marked. The opposite parties 1 to 3 were filed argument notes. Heard the counsel for the parties.

7. The points that emanated for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainants are entitled to get Rs. 8 lakhs each from the opposite parties?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- each to the complainants towards costs of the proceedings?

8. Point Nos. i. & ii. :- Ext. A2 (in both the cases) is the offer letter issued by the opposite parties to the complainants on 17-09-2007. The conditions as per Ext. A2 reads as follows :

1. You will undertake all research works assigned to you by IFCR India.

    

2. You will undergo research training program offered by IFCR India in association with York College of Industry and Technology of Canada. This includes periodic assessment and evaluation of topics relevant to Clinical Research as required by YCIT, Canada. IFCR India shall arrange the finance for your training through the Bank without any collateral security from you, purely based on your selection by IFCR India, for which your full co-operation in all documentation work is expected.

    

3. You will be paid a research stipend of Rs. 4,500/- per month by IFCR India during your training period from the date of joining.

    

4. On successful completion of the training program, you will be awarded PGDCR (Canada) by YCIT and offered placement by the Career Development Cell of IFCR India as a CRA with a minimum starting salary of INR 15,000 – 20,000/- per month based on your performance, conduct and work appraisal into research organizations having association with IFCR India.

    

5. The training fee of INR 4 lakhs with interest as applicable to the Bank will have to be paid back by you to the Bank after your placement is confirmed. After confirmation of your appointment as per clause 4, the training fee will have to be repaid on monthly instalments in due course of time.

    

6. If however you decide not to accept the appointment or placement offered by IFCR India as per clause 4, the training fee will still be payable to the bank.

    

7. You will have to enter into a separate agreement with IFCR India on the above terms, on accepting this offer of selection.”

9. On the same day, the opposite parties issued Ext. A3 admission letter (in both the cases) to the complainants. The total programme fee was Rs. 4,00,000/- plus Rs. 15,000/- towards registration fee. Accordingly, the complainants remitted the admission fee of Rs. 15,000/- on 20-09-2007 evidenced by Ext. A4 (in both the cases) and joined the course. Thereafter, both the complainants availed a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs at the instance of the opposite parties as promised by them from Bank of India, which was sanctioned on 08-02-2008. Clause 5 in the offer letter goes to show that the loan will have to be repaid after the placement is confirmed.

10. The complainants contended that the opposite parties neither did issue the Post Graduate Diploma in Clinical Research nor gave placement with a minimum starting salary of Rs. 15,000/- - 20,000/- per month as promised in the offer letter. The opposite parties contended that the complainants have got placement after the successful completion of the course offered by the opposite parties though not as promised. It is stated that the complainants did not raise any objection when the complainants came to know that Prince Edward College is awarding the diploma instead of York College of Industry and Technology of Canada. According to the opposite parties, there was sufficient opportunity to the complainants to quit the course if they were not satisfied with the award of diploma by the Prince Edward College which they did not falling back on the classical version that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

11. At the threshold, the opposite parties agreed to provide PG Diploma in Clinical Research with York College of Industry and Technology of Canada after the completion of the course. Subsequently, the opposite parties agreed to provide PG Diploma of Prince Edward College in Canada. It is pertinent to note that the diploma offered by the said institutions have not availed any recognition from the Central Government, State of Kerala or Canada and from any Universities. Though DW1 contended that recognition is not necessary, nothing is on record to substantiate the same, however, the opposite parties at the first instance had categorically claimed that the diploma is valid and recognised which by no stretch of imagination can be taken as sustainable in law. Needless to say, a student will not in his right senses go to such foolishness. Not to cite an apprehension of ours that their parents would have acquiesced to such a method. We rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital Vs. Bhupesh Khurana and Others 2009 CTJ 373 (Supreme Court) (CP), Para 33 and 34 are reads as follows :

“33. The Commission rightly came to the conclusion that this was a case of total misrepresentation on behalf of the institute which tantamounts to unfair trade practice. The respondents were admitted to the BDS Course for receiving education for consideration by the appellant college which was neither affiliated nor recognised for imparting education. This clearly falls within the purview of deficiency as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, which defines the 'deficiency' as under :

“ 'Deficiency' means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”

34. Therefore, the Commission rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the institute and the claimants respondents are entitled to claim the relief as prayed in the plaint. The appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.”

11. During the forgoing discussions, observations and upholding the decision of the Apex Court of the land, we lie. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that there is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable to pay the costs as prayed for. The opposite parties are also liable to refund the amount received from the Bank of India, Marine Drive Branch, Cochin with 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the amount till payment. For having rendered no service as detailed above, the opposite parties are liable to refund the registration charges unnecessarily collected from the complainant.

12. It is pertinent to note that a batch of 14 students of the same institution at an earlier date had to undergo the same agony and had to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for redress of their grievances. By Ext. A11, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to allow the WPC No. 5312/2011 (L) and direct the Additional D.G.P. (Crimes) to appoint an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate into the crime registered as Crime No. 1866/2010 of Central police Station, Ernakulam and submit a report before the concerned Magistrate as early as possible.

13. Not to mention the reliability of the long version drawn up by the opposite parties without an iota of evidence before this Forum leads much to thinking. For the considered views held above, we have no hesitation in allowing the complaints, we direct as under :

1. The opposite parties shall refund Rs. 4 lakhs received from the bank each to the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the amounts till realisation.

2. The opposite parties shall also refund the registration charge of Rs. 15,000/- each to the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt till realisation.

3. The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 10,000/- each to the complainants towards costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of June 2012.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

In C.C. No. 490/2009 :-

Complainant's Exhibits :

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

In C.C. No. 558/2009 :-

Complainant's Exhibits :

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========