Mattupalli Siva Prasad,

   S/o. Venkata Satyanarayana,

   Director/Proprietor of Master Minds College,

   R/o. 202-A, Swarna Arcade, 6/11, Brodiepet,

   Guntur – 2.                                                   … Opposite parties

              This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      03-05-11 in the presence of Sri R.V.A.Syam Prasad, advocate for complainants and of Sri K.Siva Rama Prasad, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages sustained by the complainants under different heads including the fee collected by the opposite parties and for costs.

The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The 1^st complainant is the father and 2^nd complainant is the son.  The 2^nd complainant passed SSC examination and thereafter he joined in Electrical and Electronics Engineering Course (3year full time) in Polytechnic College, Bapatla and passed the said diploma in March/April, 2009.  The 1^st opposite party is the tuition center for intermediate, B.com., B.Sc., CA/CS/CWA and 2^nd opposite party is the Principal/Director/Proprietor of the 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties used to send their agents to different areas more particularly to rural areas like the village of complainants and approached the parents of 10^th class/intermediate/diploma course students and canvass about their tuition center/coaching center in respect of the above courses.  During summer 2009 one of the agents of opposite party styling himself as public relation officer has made wide publicity about 1^st opposite party tuition center/coaching center and represented about the courses referred above. The said PRO represented to the complainants that there are several engineers without employment and CA course is the appropriate course for the people like 2^nd complainant as there are wide chances to come up in life and get the easy employment.  Having inspired by the said information, the complainants informed about the diploma to the 2^nd complainant and asked about his eligibility by approaching 2^nd opposite party.  Then the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainants that 2^nd complainant is entitled to study Charted Accountancy (CA) course and he is eligible for entrance examination of Common Proficiency Test (CPP) to join in CA course.  Accordingly as per the instructions of opposite party, the 2^nd complainant has applied and appeared for the above said CP test in December, 2009 and secured 1692 rank in ECET (FDH) 2009.

                The opposite parties have informed to complainants that as per GO Ms. No.112 dt.27-10-01, the Commissioner of Technical Education and Chairman, State Board of Technical Education and Training AP Hyderabad has requested the government for treating the polytechnic diploma course is equalent to intermediate and accordingly, the Government has agreed and treated accordingly.   Having reposed confidence in the opposite parties about the eligibility of CA course, the 2^nd complainant followed their instructions.  But recently the complainants learnt that the above said Government Order is applicable for the employment but not applicable for the education.  The opposite parties have purposefully made false representation to the complainants and created confidence to the 2^nd complainant to admit him in their college.  The opposite parties have received the Xerox copies of 10^th class mark list, diploma certificate etc. from the complainant and admitted him in their CA coaching center by receiving a sum of Rs.17,000/- towards CPT fee from the complainants.  The 2^nd complainant appeared for CPT and passed entrance examination of CPT.  Thereafter the opposite parties have collected fee of Rs.20,000/- and gave coaching in the coaching center of opposite parties.   On the instructions of opposite parties, the complainants obtained a draft for Rs.11,000/- in the name of Secretary, ICAI, Chennai towards CA course examinations and sent the same to the said institute through opposite parties.  Later the said Institute of Charted Accountants of India, Chennai through its letter dt.23-02-10 addressed to the complainants informed that they have received the said sum of Rs.11,000/- and further informed that the name of 2^nd complainant was registered with student registration number (IPCS)/SRO 0269625 and accordingly the 2^nd complainant was preparing for IPCC/CA course.  Subsequently, the said institute of Charted Accountants of India has sent a letter dt.29-04-10 informing that as per the communication received from the Association of Indian Universities, the student after passing 10^th class examination which has not been equated by the Association of Indian Universities with +2 qualification of an Indian Board and further informed that 2^nd complainant is not eligible for joining IPCC course and hence, the fee remitted by complainant will be refunded shortly. When the complainants showed the above letter to the opposite parties, the opposite parties have informed to complainants that the 2^nd complainant is eligible for registration as IPCC student and as such the complainants need not worry about the same and opposite parties got prepared a letter dt.11-05-10 addressed to the Asst. Secretary of the Institute of Charted Accountants of India, Chennai in the name of 2^nd complainant requesting to permit the 2^nd complainant to join in IPCC as per the above said Government Order.  Having received the said letter, the Secretary did not give any reply and kept quite. So the opposite parties got prepared another letter dt.02-06-10 addressed to the Secretary of ICAI, New Delhi in the name of 2^nd complainant requesting to permit the 2^nd complainant to pursue IPCC, but no purpose is served. 

                The 2^nd complainant is spending not less than Rs.5000/- p.m. towards his maintenance at Guntur and studying in the college of opposite parties reposing confidence in opposite parties and in their representations till this day with a fond hope that the authorities will permit him for IPCC/CA course.  Thus the 2^nd complainant has lost two chances for engineering entrance test.  This is all because of mis-representations of opposite parties.  Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, who are liable to compensate the complainants suitably.  Hence, the complaint.

The opposite parties have filed their version, which is in brief as follows:

                  Most of the averments of complaint are all false, incorrect and misleading.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint.  The opposite parties have only teaching the students for inter/CA/CS/CWA courses.  The opposite parties have no way concerned or nothing to do with their educational qualifications, choosing, selecting the courses and sending the applications to the authorities concerned.  The opposite parties neither sent agents nor PROs to the students in rural areas and approach the parents of 10^th class/inter/diploma courses.  The opposite party is only a tuition center to teach and guide the respective subjects to the students who have come forward voluntarily. The 2^nd complainant came forward voluntarily for CPT Course coaching.  For registration as CPT, 10^th class is minimum qualification.  The students personally/voluntarily will have to send their applications for registration with the ICAI authority.  The opposite parties have to take identity proof from the students before admission and opposite parties have not taken any certificates from 2^nd complainant.  The students’ qualifications/certificates are immaterial before the opposite party. 

                The complainant paid a sum of Rs.17,000/- on 03-07-09 towards tuition fee for coaching the subjects in CPT regular batch but not as CPT registration fee.  At the time of CPT examination, complainant got one prospectus from ICAI institute directly wherein the rules and regulations were printed.  Further the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as advance on 03-01-10 for the purpose of tuition/coaching fee and joined in IPCC, before completing CPT and after passing CPT, the complainant paid another sum of Rs.10,000/- on 16-02-10.  Thereafter the complainant and other students individually and voluntarily sent their respective DDs to ICAI institute directly for IPCC registration.  But the said CA institute informed the complainant about +2 qualification i.e., diploma is not equal to their rules and regulations.  Thus the opposite party is no way concerned with the same.  On the basis of earlier prospectus in his hand, 2^nd complainant sent his application directly to ICAI and it was negatived by CA institute.  So the ICAI institute is only responsible if any in this regard.  The opposite parties never interfered in sending DD and application etc.  The complainant himself admitted that his name was registered with ICAI institute as IPCC student and allotted register number by CA institute and thereafter returned by the CA institute.  So the complainant has to agitate grievance if any to the CA institute but the opposite parties have nothing to do with the same.  The complainant is put to strict proof of the allegations made by him.  Therefore the 2^nd complainant is not entitled for any relief against the opposite parties and that therefore the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

                The complainant and 1^st opposite party filed their affidavits in support of their respective contentions.

                On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A25 are marked. On behalf of opposite parties Ex.B1 was marked.     

Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?    

POINTS 1 & 2

                The 2^nd complainant has passed 10^th class and also passed diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering Course (3 year full time) and that he later joined in opposite party college by paying an amount of Rs.17,000/- towards the fee for CPT (Common Proficiency Test) and has also passed in the said Common Proficiency Test.  Subsequently, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 03-01-10 towards coaching fee and joined in IPCC before completing CPT and after passing CPT he has paid another sum of Rs.10,000/- on            16-02-10 towards tuition fee in opposite party college for which opposite party college has given tuition for IPCC.  Subsequently, complainant sent DD for Rs.11,000/- to ICAI Institute for IPCC registration.  The said DD was received by the ICAI Institute and they issued acknowledgement letter dt.23-02-10 to 2^nd complainant under Ex.A14.   Subsequently, the Institute of Charted Accountants of India, Chennai addressed a letter dt.29-04-10 to the 2^nd complainant (Ex.15) with regard to his registration for IPCC and informed that as per the communication received from the Association of Indian Universities that student after passing 10^th examination which has not been equated by Association of Indian Universities with +2 qualification of Indian Board.  Therefore, the 2^nd complainant is informed that he is not eligible for joining in IPCC course and hence the fee remitted by them will be refunded shortly.  On receipt of said letter Ex.A15, the complainant addressed Ex.A16 and A19 to the Secretary, Institute of Charted Accountants of India, Chennai and New Delhi respectively informing that he is eligible to join in IPCC as per Government Order (GO Ms. No.112), which was issued by Secretary of Higher Education (Technical Education) wherein it was clarified that technical education 3 year diploma is equalent to +2 level and requested them to sanction permission to him to pursue IPCC in view of the said GO.   

                The allegation of complainant against opposite parties is that the agent/public relation officer of opposite parties have approached the complainants and stated that several engineers are without employment and every year lacks of engineers are coming out from different colleges and that strength of tax assessies has been increasing and as such CA course is appropriate course for getting easy employment and that having inspired by said information, 2^nd complainant joined in the college of opposite parties and passed CPT Test and also joined for tuition in IPCC in opposite party college by paying Rs.20,000/- and later he paid Rs.11,000/- by way of DD for registration as IPCC student to the Institute of Charted Accountants of India and the said Institute of Charted Accountants of India informed him that he is not eligible for IPCC/CA course.  The opposite parties have received Rs.17,000/- towards tuition fee for CPT exams and gave coaching for CPT exams accordingly and later 2^nd complainant appeared for CPT and passed the same.  The 2^nd complainant has also paid Rs.20,000/- towards tuition fee for IPCC course to the opposite parties and accordingly the opposite parties have given tuition to the 2^nd complainant.  The opposite parties college is only a coaching college.  They have received fee for giving coaching to CPT exams and IPCC examinations and accordingly they have given coaching for the fee received by them.  The allegation of the complainant is not against the tuition rendered by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties have received fee for coaching and accordingly they gave coaching to 2^nd complainant for CPT and IPCC exams.  There is no deficiency of service attributed to the opposite parties for giving coaching to 2^nd complainant.  The complainants have not placed any evidence in support of their allegation that the agent/PRO of opposite parties has approached them and at their instance 2^nd complainant has joined in the college of opposite parties.  The opposite parties are no way concerned with the eligibility of 2^nd complainant for appearing IPCC/CA course.  Further, the 2^nd complainant addressed letters to the Institute of Charted Accountants of India, Chennai and New Delhi under Ex.A16 and A19 stating that he is eligible to join in IPCC course as per Government Order (GO Ms.No.112) and requested them to accord permission to him to pursue IPCC Course, after receiving Ex.A15 stating that he is not eligible for IPCC course and that the fee paid by him will be refunded to him.  Thus it clearly shows that even though the complainant is not eligible for IPCC Course according to Institute of Charted Accountants of India he has undergone coaching for the same at opposite party college by paying required tuition fee. The opposite parties have given the necessary coaching for the fee received by complainant.  The opposite parties are only concerned with regard to the coaching since it is only institute of coaching center.  The opposite parties can not be blamed for not permitting the 2^nd complainant to appear for IPCC exams by the Institute of Charted Accountants of India on the ground that he is not eligible for the same since 10^th examination was not equated by the Association of Indian Universities with +2 qualification of the Indian Board.  No evidence is placed before this Forum by the complainants to attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore in the circumstances of case and for the aforesaid reasons, we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of opposite parties and against the complainants.   

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances of case without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 9^th day of May, 2011.

          MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For Opposite Parties:                                                                         

                                                                                              Sd/-XXXX

                                                                                                PRESIDENT