Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/324/2015

M/s.Radhakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Stella Marys College - Opp.Party(s)

R.Veeramani

12 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 17.07.2015

Date of Reservation      : 24.08.2022

Date of Order               : 12.09.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 324/2015

MONDAY, THE 12^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

M.S.Radhakrishnan,

Son of (Late) Shri.M.S.Sankara Panicker,

No.14/21, Panicker's Building,

School Street, Sathya Nagar,

Padi, Chennai-600 050.                                                    ... Complainants                       

 

..Vs..

1.National Foundation for CSR (NFCSR),

   Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA),

   Rep by its Director Mr.Baskar Chatterjee,

   Plot Nos. P 6, 7, 8 Sectors 5,

   IMT Manaser, Gurgaon District,

   (Haryana)-122050.

 

2.Government of India,

   Ministry of Corporate Affairs,

   Paryavaran Bhavan, 2nd Floor,

   CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,

   New Delhi-110 003.

 

3.Stella Marys College,

   17, Cathedral road,

    Chokkalingam Nagar, Teynampet,

    Chennai – 600 086.                                                  ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant                        : M/s. R.Veeramani

Counsel for the 1^st  and 3^rd Opposite Parties   : M/s. S. Kumar

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party                : Dismissed

        On perusal of records this Commission, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.52,000/- to the Complainant with interest @24% p.a and to pay a  Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and mental agony along with cost.     

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant after his post graduation got an employment in a Public Sector Company HMT Limited during the beginning of 1990’s towards the end of 90’s he set up his own SSI Unit and had been a successful entrepreneur till 2013. During 2013 he closed his business. The Complainant came across an advertisement in “The Hindu” on 07.07.2014 for the launch of certificate programme ICP – CSR of 9 month duration conducted by IICA. The 3^rd Opposite Party was a partner to conduct the certificate course. The Complainant paid a registration fees of Rs.2000/- for on line entrance exam. He was provided an admit card for his online entrance test scheduled on 24.08.2014. The Complainant was qualified in the entrance examination and he was directed to pay the initial instalment of Rs.50,000/- to secure admission for their course. The Complainant paid the amount. The Complainant was instructed to attend an orientation programme in its campus in Manesar, District Gurgaon (Haryana) on 08.10.2014. During the orientation programme he was given printed materials hardly worth about Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/-. After that he came back to Chennai. The Opposite Party assured that the curse on operate social responsibility will be a 9 month intensive E learning course. The course officially commenced on 13.10.2014 but even by middle of December 2014 the exclusive e learning platform was never commenced. Within a  month of his entry into the course, he came to know that the course advertised by the Opposite Party exclusively only about section 135 of the companies act 2013, for which they have charged a hopping sum of Rs.50,000/-. The course offered by the Opposite Parties suffered various deficiencies. Their service was substandard and did not make any contribution in the courier prospectus of the Complainant. Therefore he have no option to quit from course. The Complainant addressed several letters for refund of the course fee. However the Opposite Party did not refund nor issued any reply to is communications. He caused a lawyers notice on 13.04.2015, to which the Opposite Parties choose to issued reply notice dated 21.05.2015 with false and untenable claims. The Opposite Parties had committed unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

3.       Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party and adopted by the 3^rd Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

        At the out the Complainant is a learner and therefore not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Complainant has paid only first instalment fee and he did not ay the second and third instalment. The orientation programme organised between 8^th to 10the October 2014 at Manesar, Gurgaon was attended by the Complainant. He was provided a full set of study material. The entrance test was conducted on 24.08.2014. 10 candidates were selected from Chennai, they were divided into 2 groups of 5 each for the purpose of contact classes. Faculties were allocated. After the allocation of the faculty the programme coordinator vide email dated 14.10.2014 enquire from all the learners about the establishing their contact with the trainer.  On 01.11.2014 welcome function was held which was attended by the Complainant. Contact classes were held on various dates. The 1^st test was conducted on 21.11.2014 the Complainant appeared in test and secured 7.5 marks out of 10.  The second test was held on 19.12.2014. The Complainant was present and quit the test. The 3^rd test was held on 29.04.2015. The Complainant did not take up the test. The course was successfully conducted for 9 months from 13.10.2014 to July 2015. 192 candidates completed the course form various parts of the country. There was not even a single drop out or defaulter for payment of fee except the Complainant. The Complainant not only failed to pay the 2^nd and 3^rdinstallment repeatedly attempted to create negativity in the environment through his emails addressed to all the learners. Starting from 22.12.2014 and till the confusion of the course. The course offered did not suffered any deficiency. The course was conducted in the same manner as was advertised. The Complainant does not reserve and his not entitled to the refund of Rs.50,000/- paid by him. Since he has availed the training and other facilities. There is no cause or ground for the complainant to approach this Forum. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.     The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10 were marked. The 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-3 were marked. Complaint as against 2^nd Opposite Party was dismissed on 09.02.2016.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1

The undisputed facts is that the Complainant had joined the ICP -CSR (IICA Certificate Programme in CSR) a certificate programme in CSR for 9 months conducted by the 1^st Opposite Party and the 3^rd Opposite Party is the only partner institution in TamilNadu, having contact study centre for IICA.  The Complainant took the entrance test conducted by the 1^st Opposite Party on 24.08.2015.  After getting qualified in the entrance examination the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards 1^st instalment for the said course. The dispute arose when the Complainant failed to make subsequent payments and claimed to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- on the basis that the services provided by the Opposite Parties suffered from various deficiencies.

        The contention of the Complainant was that after payment of the initial amount of 50,000/- the Complainant was instructed to attend an orientation programme in Manesar, Gurgoan, Haryana on 08.10.2014. The Complainant was given printed materials hardly worth Rs.2500/- consisting of learner Instruction Handbook, CSR, Indian Ready Reckoner, Learners Manual on CSR. The Complainant was allured and swayed by the misleading statements of the Opposite Parties that the course on the Corporate Social Responsibility will be a 9 month intensive e-learning course. The exclusive e-learning platform was not commenced until the middle of December 2014. The Complainant came to realise the credentials of the tutors handling course and that the knowledge level of the tutors is shallow and in experienced in handling the course and, which he came to know while he was interacting with the tutors. The Complainant had quit the course as the service of the Opposite Parties was substandard and did not make any contribution in the carrier of the Complainant.

        The Opposite Party contended that the structure of the course was as follows:

1. Two interaction with IICA 
2. 14 weeks  online non contact study.
3. 4 weeks contact classes  
4. 12 week project with NGO/Trust/Foundation/Society
5. 3 weeks corporate Attachment

Marking creteria:

1. 14 weeks online study and on-line test – 50 marks

a) 1^st online test  – 10 marks

b) 2^nd online tests – 10 marks   

c) 3^rd Online rest     - 10 marks

d) 4^th On line Big Bang Test - -20 marks.

II. 3 weeks attachment with corporate – 20 marks

III. 12 weeks project work NGO– 30 marks

Fee Payment schedule

1. 1^st instalment (Rs.50,000/-) 12^th Sep, 2014 to 30^th Nov, 2014
2. 2^nd instalment (Rs.25,000/-) 1^st Jan, 2015 to 20^th Mar, 2015
3. 3^rd instalment (Rs.25,000/-) 1^st April, 2015 to 30^th June 2015.

The orientation programme was organized between 8^th to 10^th October, 2014 at Manesar (Gurgaon). The Complainant attended the Orientation Programme and returned to Chennai. At Manesar, the Complainant was provided the best of the Hospitality. The first Opposite Party incurred substantialexpenses on his boarding and lodging for the Orientation Programme. He was provided full set of study material comprising.

1. Learner instruction hand book’
2. CSR India Ready Reckoner      
3. Learners Manual on CSR

         Dr.Sundari Krishnamoorthy, coordinator of the course, Ms. Anu Oza, faculty, trainer and Ms.Jayashree Balasubraminain, faculty/trainer was engaged for conducting the course at Chennai. The said Dr.Sundari Krishnamoorthy presented several research papers on International  Journals and also won National and Internatioanal awards. She posses 40 years experience in the filed of education research and trainers. Ms.Jaishree Balasubramanian is strategy communications, media and development professional with over 18 years of professional experience. Ms.Anu Oza possess 20 years experience in various human relations and corporate social responsibility.

          The Course was successfully conducted from 13.10.2014 to July 2015. The Complainant attended the contact classes and also attended two tests which was conducted by the 3^rd Opposite Party and Complainant was also provided the corporate attachment with TVS Motors and the NGO, the “Baniyan”. But the Complainant did not take up the two attachment and did not paid the 2^nd and 3^rd installment fees.

        As per Ex.B1 on 14.10.2014 the Opposite Party had sent a mail to the Complainant  and other students of which one of the student had expressed comfort with her mentor Ms.Jaishree and her group Ms.Uma and Mr.Radhakriahnan, the Complainant. From Ex.B-2 it could be seen that the Complainant had sent a mail to various learners showing his distrust  on the knowledge of the Government and its members based on which they decide on policy and actions, which shows the improper attitude of the Complainant.

        The Complainant had attended the Orientation Programme from 08.10.2014 to 10.10.2014 conducted by the Opposite Parties and was provided printed study materials and corporate attachments by the Opposite Parties. He also appeared for 2 tests conducted by the 1^st Opposite Party. Thereafter it is seen he failed to pay the subsequent instalments and stopped attending the classes. Having quit from the programme in the mid way and not paying the balance fee, the Complainant has come forward with this complaint seeking refund of the amount already paid after having attended certain classes.                                                                                                                       Even on merits, the complainant has no case, as he had dmitted of attending classes and received                                                                                                                

        It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the High Court of Madras and the Honb’le National commission in catena of cases have held that education is not a commodity and education institution are not rendering services. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of services. Therefore with regard to payment of fees they cannot be a question of deficiency of service.  Therefore the Complainant cannot be considered as a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Even on merits, the Complainant has no case, as he had admitted of attending classes and received course material from the Opposite Parties. The Complainant had not paid balance amount and had quit the course. Hence this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had not committed any deficiency of service and hence the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3 :-

As discussed and decided point no.1 as against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the Complaint and/or for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

         In the result the complaint is Dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 12^th of September 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	07.07.2014	Advertisement made in news daily
Ex.A2	10.07.2014	Application made by Complainant
Ex.A3	24.08.2014	Online entrance exam admit card
Ex.A4	-	Pamphlets issued by Opposite Parties
Ex.A5	-	Learners instructions handbook issued by Opposite Party
Ex.A6	24.09.2014	Complainants bank statements
Ex.A7	08.10.2014	Orientation workshop
Ex.A8	-	e-mail correspondence from 4th August 2014 to 16th March, 2015 between Complainant and Opposite Parties
Ex.A9	13.04.2015	Copy of Lawyer’s Notice caused by Complainant
Ex.A10	21.05.2015	Reply notice issued by 1st Opposite Party

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1	15.10.2014	Email of the Complainant appreciating IICA/STELLA trainer
Ex.B2	22.12.2014	Email of the Complainant criticising the Government
Ex.B3	18.10.2015	Email of the Complainant spreading negativity

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT