DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 31^st day of May, 2010

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC.No.48/2009

P.V.Rahmathulla,

S/o.P.V.Abubacker,

Pulanthola Valappil House,

Post Mala-Kakkattiri, Via Thrithala,

Palakkad District. - Complainant

(Adv.M.Ramesh)

Vs

1. M/s.Minority Arts & Science College,

Vattaprarambu, Padinharangadi,

Othalur Post, Kappur Panchayath,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad.

(By Adv.A.Ranjit Unni)

2. The Chairman,

M/s.Minority Arts & Science College,

Vattaprarambu, Padinharangadi,

Othalur Post, Kappur Panchayath,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad.

(By Adv.P.Krishnakumar)

3. The Secretary,

M/s.Minority Arts & Science College,

Vattaprarambu, Padinharangadi,

Othalur Post, Kappur Panchayath,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad.

(By Adv.A.Ranjit Unni)

4. The Principal,

M/s.Minority Arts & Science College,

Vattaprarambu, Padinharangadi,

Othalur Post, Kappur Panchayath,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad. - Opposite parties

(By Adv.A.Ranjit Unni)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Case of the complainant in brief:

Complainant joined the opposite party No.1 institution for B.Com. Degree course, of which opposite parties Nos.2, 3 and 4 are Chairman, Secretary and Principal respectively. The fourth opposite party issued a prospectus published by the college wherein it is said that the institution is affiliated to Calicut University and is recognized by the Government of Kerala for conducting various courses including B.Com course. On believing the representation, complainant joined the above course. Complainant remitted an amount of Rs.6,000/- on 16/7/08 towards fees. Class commenced on 23/7/2008. Complainant has attended class till 31/012009 when some co-students said the complainant that the opposite party college is not having the recognition and affiliation for conducting the B.Com course. Complainant enquired the same to the 4^th opposite party. The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties admitted the fact that the 1^st opposite party college has not so far obtained affiliation and recognition from Calicut University and Kerala Government to conduct B.Com course, but they started the course on the belief that they would be able to obtain the same. A letter to that effect was also given to one of the student. The grievance of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party institution has not yet obtained affiliation and recognition as promised by them as a result of which complainant and other co-students are not in a position to attend the 1^st year B.Com examination. Since the complainant did not want to waste one year study, he went for the private registration for the course by spending further sum of Rs.1,550/-. Complainant submitted that certificates issued by the private college will not be valid for jobs and higher studies in reputed institutions. The act of the opposite parties has resulted in great mental agony for the complainant. The act of opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint.

Complainant claims for a total amount of Rs.1,26,550/- under different head including compensation.

All opposite parties filed version. As per the contentions of the 2^nd opposite party he is only the Chairman of the Minority Arts and Science College and has no direct dealing with any admission proceedings. Admission and other day to day affairs of the college are maintained by the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties. If any wrong has happened in the admission proceedings that is only due to the mistake of the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties. Compensation if any ordered is to be levied from 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.

1^St, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties filed joint version contending the following. As per their contention the 1^st opposite party institution is a backward minority institution under the Minority Education Trust. Courses like BBA, BA Mass Communication, BA Arabic courses have recognition from Government of Kerala and Calicut University. The complaint is filed by a few students who are politically motivated, deliberately to tarnish the reputation of the opposite party institution. Opposite parties submitted that the complainant was not even qualified to procure admission in a tutorial college since their aggregate percentage does not exceed 60%. The 4^th opposite parties has explained the complainant in detail that seats are available for BA Mass Communication and BBA and recognition for B.Com degree courses has been passed by the Syndicate and has forwarded it to the Higher Education Department for approval and were waiting for their reply. The complainant and other students who were unable to get admission on the current academic year pleaded and requested the opposite parties that they may be permitted to join the said course and they were prepared to wait for the sanction. They even submitted that the entire responsibilities with regard to the consequences were on them. Opposite parties admit that an amount of Rs.6,000/- was received on account of fees. Opposite parties submitted that they have done everything to see to it that the recognition for the course is obtained at the earliest. Due to the sincere efforts and after much hardship in 2008 opposite parties managed to get permission from the Kerala Government. Accordingly an affidavit signed by the Secretary

and two witnesses was submitted stating that they were prepared to allow 50% of seat on merit and 50% seat in minority quota. Opposite parties in this connection has met the Joint Registrar of the Calicut University who explained that they would be receiving an order on 30^th of that month following a syndicate meeting. There after opposite parties explained these matters to the students and had convened a PTA meeting regarding passing of this information. But nobody turn at the meeting. Unfortunately for the opposite parties the syndicate meeting on 30^th did not consider the petition of the opposite party institution. Opposite parties met a syndicate member and submitted a representation informing that the future of the 30 students who had joined B.Com course depended entirely on their decision. But again due to some politically motivated reasons a letter was issued to the Principal enquiring why the course were started. The opposite parties were compelled to change a clarification thrice before giving a formal Government Order for continuing B.Com course. In this the opposite parties were asked to continue and commence the course from 2009-2010. By that time students went out of control for no rhyme and reason and they damaged whole college buildings. They destroyed doors, benches etc and had not even permitted the lecturers, tutors inside the office room for nearly a month. They did not even allow to conduct of BBA classes. A complaint was filed by the Manager before the Thrithala Police Station requesting them to intervene and prevent the complainant and other students from causing further damage to the opposite party institution. Police advised that the destruction of public property was serious offence and tried for a settlement. Opposite parties agreed to give them coaching for 10 months and to make them appear for the exam privately at the cost of the management. The entire expenses in this regard were born completely by the opposite parties. Six lecturers had taken classes for B.Com students for 10 months in this regard. It is also submitted that none of the complainant has lost any academic year. All of them had appeared for the examination privately on the previous year and are continuing their studies for the second year. Hence there is no deficiency in service

on the part of the opposite parties.

Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Exts.A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant. Opposite parties filed their respective affidavits. No documentary evidence on the part of opposite parties.

Issues for consideration;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2:

The definite case of the complainant is that believing the prospectus issued by the opposite parties complainant joined the opposite party institution for B.Com degree course. He studied there about six months when he understood that the course is not having affiliation of Calicut University and recognition of Kerala Government as stated in the prospectus. Opposite parties admitted that they are not having affiliation with Calicut University or recognition from Kerala Government for conducting B.Com course during the relevant period. Opposite parties submitted that complainant has joined the institution knowing these facts. Opposite parties has started the course on the belief that they will get recognition and all positive steps were taken for the grant of the same.

Heard both parties and has gone through the entire evidence on record.

It is an admitted fact that the 1^st opposite party institution is not having affiliation with Calicut University or recognition of Kerala Government for conducting B.Com course during the relevant period. The question to be decided is whether the fact is made known

to the complainant. Apart from the affidavit there is absolutely no other evidence on the part of opposite parties to prove the same. Moreover any person going through Ext.A1 which is the prospectus issued by the opposite parties will be under the impression that three courses serially numbered in the prospectus has got recognition of the Kerala Government, the fact which is clearly stated in the prospectus. Ext.A4 which is the letter in the letter head of opposite party institution giving assurance to the students regarding sanction reveals the fact that opposite parties has concealed the information from the complainant earlier. Ext.A1 is clear evidence of the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties. Unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(i)(r) is as follows.

“unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely,-

(1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation

4. represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have;

5. represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have;

The acts of opposite parties clearly comes under the definition of unfair trade practice. 2^nd opposite party who is the Chairman of the opposite party college has contented that he being the Chairman, has no direct or indirect dealing with any admission proceedings which are to be looked by other opposite parties and hence he may be absolved from liability if any. The contention seem to be strange. 2^nd opposite party being the Chairman is

equally responsible with other opposite parties.

In the view of the above discussions we are of the view that all opposite parties are equally liable to the complainant herein who has lost one academic year on the fault of opposite parties and which has definitely resulted in a lot of mental agony to the complainant.

In view of the above discussions we allow the complaint.

All opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant on account of the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties and deficiency in service on their part together with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of May, 2010

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Date of filing: 20/04/2009

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Prospectus (2008-2009)

Ext.A2 – Photocopy Fee Receipt No.928 dt.16/7/08 for Rs.6,000/-

Ext.A3 - Photocopy of letter dt.16/01/2009 issued by opposite parties

Ext.A4 – Copy of complaint filed by Prabin before JFCM, Pattambi

Ext.A5 – Photocopy of FIR

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost(Allowed)

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) allowed as cost