KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 236/2007
JUDGMENT DATED:25-04-2011
PRESENT:
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
Dhanoop.N.Nair,
S/o Narayanan Nair, Mattappillil House, : APPELLANT
Chocadu.P.O, Malappuram.
(By Adv:Sri.Tom Joseph)
Vs.
M/s Rai University,
III/960, Karuvelipady, : RESPONDENT
Thoppumpady.P.O,
Kochi – 682 005.
(By Adv:Sri.Hari Sharma)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant is the complainant and respondent is the opposite party in CC.336/06 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in conducting the course B.Tech (Mech.). It was alleged that the opposite party made advertisement in newspaper stating that the aforesaid B.Tech (Mech.) is the course recognized by Government and other responsible authorities such as UGC, AICET etc; that the complainant joined the said course believing the aforesaid representation made by the opposite party; that subsequently the complainant got information that the said course is not recognized by the Government or any other responsible authorities and so the complainant discontinued the course and joined for B Tech (Mech) course in Bharathiyar College of Engineering and Technology, Pondichery. The aforesaid act of the opposite party by giving misleading advertisement and representation would amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. It was further alleged that the complainant spent a total of Rs.1,40,600/- for the aforesaid course and thereby the complainant suffered financial loss and he has also lost his 2 valuable years by attending the said course for 4 semesters. Therefore, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.3.lakhs and refund of Rs.1,40,600/-.
2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. It was contended that the opposite party Rai University was formed by notification dated:30/5/2003 of Government of Chattisgarh; that the State Government authorized the opposite party to conduct various courses and to set up off campus centers at various places including Kochi; that the opposite party, Rai University was accorded sanction under act 2/02 of the Government of Chattisgarh; the validity of the said act was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Court quashed some of the provisions of the said act; that it was also stated by the court that in order to protect the interest of students the institutions established by private universities can be affiliated to the other existing State Universities in Chattisgarh; that the Opposite party moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court for getting clarification in the matter and by the clarification order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the opposite party University has been given the right to take necessary steps to get affiliation with any other Universities which have jurisdiction over the area where the institution is functioning; that by the letter dated:12/1/2006 Mahathma Gandhi University was approached for affiliation for the courses conducted by the opposite party in its center at Kochi and the Mahathma Gandhi University approved the proposal for affiliation. It was also contended that at present, there is no University called, Rai University and that the activities of the said University are being conducted by Rai foundation. It was further contended that the opposite party has not made any misleading representation as contended by the complainant. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Before the Forum below, the father of the complainant was examined as PW1, Exts.A1 to A3 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. The campus in charge of the opposite party filed proof affidavit and was examined as DW1. Exts.B1 to B8 documents were also marked on the side of the opposite party. Both sides filed arguments notes. Based on the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 4th April 2007 dismissing the complaint in CC.336/06. Hence the present appeal.
4. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/opposite party. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the respondent/opposite party made false representation to the complainant and his father regarding the recognition for the B Tech (Mech) course and it is on the basis of the said representation and assurance the appellant/complainant joined for the said course. Thus, he argued for the position that there was deficiency of service on the part of the respondent/opposite party; but the Forum below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to allow the complaint in CC.336/06.
5. There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant joined the B Tech (Mech) course conducted by the respondent/opposite party, Rai University. The aforesaid course, B Tech (Mech) was conducted at the off campus center of Rai University. The aforesaid off campus center was at Kochi and it was represented by the campus in charge of the opposite party, Rai University. The appellant/complainant has got a case that the respondent/opposite party, Rai University made false advertisements in newspapers and thereby attracted the students including the appellant/complainant. But, the respondent/ opposite party denied the aforesaid case of the appellant/complainant with respect to publishing of false advertisements. The appellant/complainant could not adduce any acceptable evidence to substantiate his case regarding the false advertisement published by the respondent/opposite party, Rai University. Admittedly, appellant/complainant has not produced any such advertisements published in newspaper or in any other media. So, the Forum below has rightly held that the complainant failed to prove his case regarding the publishing of misleading or false advertisements.
6. The appellant/complainant has also got a case that the respondent/opposite party made false representations regarding the recognition of the B Tech (Mech) course by the Government and other responsible authorities such as UGC, AICET etc. But there is nothing on record to show that the respondent/opposite party made such representations regarding recognition of the said course by AICET etc. No evidence is available on record to show that the respondent/opposite party, Rai University made such representation to the complainant or his father that the B Tech (Mech) course is recognized by AICET etc.
7. Ext.B1 notification dated:30/5/2003 issued by Government of Chattisgarh, Department of Higher Education, Technical Education, Janashakthi Niyojan and Science and Technology Mantralaya would make it clear that the opposite party, Rai University, Raipur came into existence on the strength of Act 2/02 known as Chattisgarh Nizi Kshetra Viswa Vidyalaya (Sathapna aur Viniyaman) Adhmiyam, 2002. As per B1 notification, the opposite party Rai University, Raipur has been authorized to conduct the syllabus and to grant degree or diplomas for which it shall be recognized or authorized as may be required under any other law for time being in force. So, B1 notification would make it clear that the said notification was issued by the Government of Chattisgarh by virtue of the provisions of Sec.5 of the Chattisgarh Nizi Kshetra Viswa Vidyalaya (Sathapna aur Viniyaman) Adhmiyam 2002 (Act 2/02) for expansion of Higher/Technical Education in Chattisgarh and that as per the said notification, the opposite party Rai University Raipur came into effect with effect from 30/5/2003.
8. A careful reading of the B1 notification would make it abundantly clear that the Government of Chattisgarh issued the said notification authorizing the opposite party/Rai University to conduct various courses for which the opposite party/University shall be recognized or authorized as may be required under any other law for the time being in force. It is to be noted that the respondent/opposite party, Rai University was also authorized to establish off campus centers outside the State of Chattisgarh by virtue of the provisions of Act 2/02 of the Government of Chattisgarh. But at the same time the respondent/opposite party, Rai University was bound to obtain recognition or authorization as required under any other law for the time being in force. It is to be noted that the respondent/opposite party, Rai University conducted B Tech Mechanical course and that the appellant/complainant joined for the said course through the off campus centre of the opposite party/Rai University.
9. The campus in charge of the opposite party/Rai University was examined before the Forum below as DW1. DW1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted the fact that for conducting engineering course recognition and approval of AICET is required. DW1 has also admitted the fact that the documents produced from the side of the opposite party/Rai University did not show the recognition obtained from AICET. The evidence of DW1 is sufficient enough to come to a just and reasonable conclusion that the respondent/opposite party, Rai University conducted B Tech (Mech) Engineering course without obtaining the required recognition and approval from AICET. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent/opposite party, Rai University had the recognition to conduct B Tech (Mech) engineering course through its off campus center at Kochi. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that the respondent/opposite party commenced the aforesaid B Tech (Mech) Engineering course without obtaining the recognition and approval from the competent authority viz. AICET.
10. Ext.B1 notification issued under Act 2/02 of Government of Chattisgarh has only authorized the opposite party, Rai University to conduct various degree and diploma courses. But it is made more specific and clear that the said courses could be commenced by obtaining recognition or approval from the competent authorities under the law in force. In the present case in hand, the respondent/opposite party commenced B Tech (Mech) Engineering course without the recognition of the competent authority viz. AICET. DW1 has categorically admitted that recognition of AICET is a must for conducting engineering course. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that the respondent/opposite party conducted the B Tech (Mech) Engineering course without obtaining the recognition of AICET, the competent authority under the law for the time being in force. The aforesaid action of the respondent/opposite party in conducting the said course without obtaining the required recognition from AICET would amount to deficiency of service.
11. Unfortunately, the Forum below failed to consider the aforesaid relevant aspect of the case. If that be so, the finding of the Forum below that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party (respondent herein) Rai University cannot be upheld. It is also to be noted that the aforesaid unauthorized action on the part of the respondent/opposite party would also amount to unfair trade practice. This State Commission have no hesitation to hold that the respondent/opposite party, Rai University adopted unfair trade practice and committed deficiency of service by conducting B Tech (Mech) course without obtaining the recognition from AICET.
12. The evidence on record would make it clear that the respondent/opposite party was guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in conducting B Tech (Mech) course through its off campus center at Kochi. The appellant/complainant joined the said course and he spent a total of Rs.1,40,600/-. The aforesaid amount would also take in the hostel fees incurred by the appellant/complainant. It is also to be noted that the appellant/complainant continued for 4 semesters and thereby he spent valuable two years by attending the B Tech (Mech) course conducted by the respondent/opposite party Rai University. It is the definite case of the appellant/complainant that after 4 semesters he discontinued the said course, on getting information that the said course has no recognition from the Government and the other competent authorities. It is the further case of the appellant/complainant that he joined for B Tech (Mech) Engineering course in the Bharathiyar College of Engineering and Technology, Pondichery. The father of the complainant as PW1 has also deposed to that effect. The aforesaid case of the appellant/complainant has not been disputed by the respondent/opposite party. Thus, it can be concluded that the appellant/complainant suffered financial loss of Rs.1,40,600/- and that he also lost valuable 2 years by attending the unrecognized course conducted by the Respondent/opposite party.
13. Ext.A2 series of receipts issued by the respondent/opposite party Rai University would establish the fact that the appellant/complainant incurred a total of Rs.1,40,600/- for attending the B Tech (Mech) course conducted by the opposite party. So, the claim of the appellant/complainant for refund of Rs.1,40,600/- is to be treated as just and reasonable. This state commission have no hesitation in directing the respondent/opposite party to refund the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,40,600/- to the appellant/complainant. The respondent/opposite party is also to be made liable to compensate the appellant/complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The appellant/complainant is also to be compensated for the loss of his 2 years by attending an unrecognized course which was conducted by the respondent/opposite party. Considering all these aspects, a sum of Rs.1.lakh is ordered as compensation due to the appellant/complainant. Thus, the appellant/complainant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,40,600/- from the respondent/opposite party. The appellant/complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2000/- by way of cost. The respondent/opposite party is directed to pay the aforesaid compensation and cost within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which the said compensation amount of Rs.2,40,600/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint in CC.336/06 till the date of realization.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated:4th April 2007 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.336/06 is set aside and the complaint in the said CC.336/06 is allowed. Thereby, the respondent/opposite party is directed to pay a total compensation of Rs.2,40,600/- to the appellant/complainant with cost of Rs.2000/-. The aforesaid compensation amount and the cost are to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.2,40,600/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint in CC.336/06 (5/8/2006) till the date of realization.
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
VL.
