BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.690/2014

DATED ON THIS THE 19^th August 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to pay Rs.19.50 lakhs compensation and Rs.40,000/- towards miscellaneous charges along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of realization and to start the PGDM – Creative Management Classes at MYRA school of business campus and to issue relevant documents, permit to avail the library facilities and to issue certificate and to assist job placement after completion of the course.
2.     The complainant joined the opposite party No.1 college to pursue his education in PGDM – Creative Management by depositing the requisite fees.  The classes held at ISIM campus at University of Mysuru instead of opposite party No.1’s campus.  The complainant completed his 1^st and 2^nd semester with internship.  The complainant demanded for certain documents to avail financial assistance from the bank.  Opposite parties failed to provide the same.  The opposite party No.1 abruptly closed the classes from 01.04.2014, though opposite party No.2 expressed its interest to conduct classes.  Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were under the obligation to provide PGDM – Creative Management Education and certification to the students who opted the course on payment of the fees.  In spite of repeated demands, the opposite parties failed to fulfil their obligation to the complainant.  As such, aggrieved complainant filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party No.1, representing on behalf of opposite party Nos.3 and 4 denies the allegations.  It submits, the complainant has paid the course fee to opposite party No.2 and as per the MOU, the opposite party No.2 is bound to fulfil its obligation but failed.  Further submits, as per the norms stipulated by the Government of Karnataka, if the enrolment is less than five (05) students to the under graduate/post graduate programs, the courses need not be offered and the fee collected shall be refunded or transferred to another centre/institution, hence, the opposite party No.1 says, the opposite party No.2 could have exercised the option in consultation with opposite party No.1, in case they were unable to get enrol the required number of students, as enumerated in the MOU.  Therefore, the opposite party No.2 is solely responsible for resolving the dispute of the complainant.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint against opposite party No.1, 3 and 4.
4.     Opposite party No.2 together representing on behalf of opposite party Nos.5, 6 and 7 submits, the complaint is frivolous, mischievous, misconceived, false, hence not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.  Further, submits, the opposite party No.1 offering post graduate programs in various streams, realising the credibility of opposite party No.2, has entered into an MOU, to facilitate in conducting courses to the aspiring students at its campus at Mysuru and subject to fulfilment of respective obligations, stipulated in the MOU.  The opposite party No.1 was responsible for issuance of student I.D. and other relevant certificates in respect of the students who pursue PGDM – Creative Management Course. Despite of MOU, the opposite party No.1 failed to provide requisite infrastructure facilities, instead the classes were conducted at ISIM Campus at University of Mysuru, Mysuru.  Though the opposite party No.1 campus ready, failed to provide the facilities to opposite party No.2 to conduct classes as per MOU.  Subsequently, on 01.04.2014, the Chairperson of opposite party No.1 abruptly decided to close down the classes and did so, even though opposite party No.2 was interested in conducting classes.  Hence, the opposite party No.2 has failed to meet its obligation as per MOU, so there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite party No.2 as such, prays for dismissal of the complaint against opposite party Nos.2,5,6 and 7.
5.     To prove the facts both parties lead their evidence by filing affidavit along with several documents.  Both parties filed written arguments and heard the oral submissions of respective counsels.  On perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable under C.P.Act 1986?
2. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties, in not conducting the PGDM-Creative Management Course Classes at opposite party No.1’s campus and not issuing the relevant documents to avail financial assistance and which lead to mental agony, financial loss, hardship etc., and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
3.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant paid fees and joined the course offered by the opposite parties and completed 1^st and 2^nd semester PGDM – in Creative Management Course.  The opposite parties failed to issue student I.D. and other relevant certificates to the complainant, even on demand.  Both opposite parties shifting the responsibility on each other and made the complainant to suffer.  As such, opposite parties have committed deficiency and unfair trade practice to the complainant under the provisions of 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(r) of C.P.Act 1986.  Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complaint is maintainable.  As such, the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
9.    Point No.2:- The complainant after his graduation, attracted by the opposite parties offer relating to a course, by name “Post Graduate Diploma in Management – Creative Management (PGDM – Creative Management)” to be conducted at opposite party No.1 campus in collaboration with opposite party No.2.  The complainant completed 1^st and 2^nd semester course, with internship at Bangalore and also paid Rs.62,500/- course fee for each semester.  The classes were conducted at ISIM campus at University of Mysuru not at the campus of opposite party No.1, i.e. MYRA school of business.  The 3^rd semester classes were started at ISIM campus in January 2014.  The opposite parties failed to provide necessary documents to the complainant, required for availing financial assistance from the bank.  Subsequently, the Chairperson of opposite party No.1 has abruptly closed the classes with effect from 01.04.2014 and also informed the complainant, not to come to the college again.  The requests made by the complainant to conduct classes at opposite party No.1 campus, went in vain.  Hence, the aggrieved complainant filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
10. The opposite party No.1 denied the allegations and contended that it has not committed any deficiency and unfair trade practice to the complainant, hence the complaint is not maintainable against it.  It is admitted that, an MOU entered with opposite party No.2 to conducted classes for the course PGDM – in Creative Management.  It is contended that, the complainant has paid fee towards course to opposite party No.2 and as per the MOU, the opposite party No.2 is under the obligation to fulfil the conditions stipulated therein.
11. Further, opposite party No.1 contended that, as per the norms stipulated by the Government of Karnataka, if the enrolment is less than five students to the under graduate or post graduate programs, the courses need not be offered and the fees collected shall be refunded or transferred to another centre/institution.  As such, the opposite party No.2 could have exercised this option in consultation with opposite party No.1, in case they were unable to get enrol the minimum requisite number of student to the course, as enumerated in the MOU.  Hence, opposite party No.1 contended that, opposite party No.2 is solely responsible for resolving, the dispute of the complainant and as such, prays for dismissal of the complaint against opposite party Nos.1, 3 and 4.
12. Opposite party No.2 admitted the MOU and its obligations in conducting the classes for the PGDM – Course in Creative Management.  Opposite party No.1, a registered educational trust at Mysuru approached and on satisfying the commitment, performance and achievements of opposite party No.2, entered into an MOU and offered to start the course from the academic year 2012-13 as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the MOU dated 09.07.2012.  The complainant got enrolled himself to the PGDM in Creative Management in December 2012.  Since, opposite party No.1 failed to provide necessary infrastructure, there was substantial reduction in number of students enrolment to the said course.  The opposite party No.2 held classes at ISIM campus, as the opposite party No.1 campus was not ready with all the necessary infrastructure facilities.  The opposite party No.1 evaded to shift the classes to its campus for the said course from 01.04.2014, even though opposite party No.2 was ready to conduct classes.  Hence, opposite party No.2 contended that, there is no deficiency and unfair trade practice committed by it and hence not liable to compensate the complaint.  As such, prays for dismissal of the complaint against it.
13. On perusal of the material placed on record, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have entered into an MOU, with an intention to start a course in Post Graduate Diploma in Management in Creative Management, stipulating certain obligations on each other.  The opposite party No.1 assured to conduct classes at its campus, i.e. MYRA school of business, opp. Power Grid, Koorgalli, Yelwala, Mysuru, but held the classes at International School of Information Management (ISIM), Manasagangaothri, University of Mysuru, Mysuru.  The complainant completed 1^st and 2^nd semester course along with internship course.  Further, got admitted to 3^rd semester from January 2014.  The opposite party No.1 evaded to move the classes to its campus, later, as per the directions of the opposite party No.1, Chairperson, closed the classes and complainant was directed not to come to the college.  Aggrieved by the abrupt decisions of opposite party No.1, the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and requested to continue the classes.  Opposite party No.2 expressed its interest in conducting classes, but failed to comply as there was non-co-operation from opposite party No.1.  Thereby, the opposite party No.2 could not fulfill its obligation.  Hence, both opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not fulfilled their respective obligation satisfactorily, as such, the complainant could not complete his course.  Hence, both opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to compensate the complainant, for the mental agony, financial loss, hardship suffered.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.   
14. Point No.3:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards the loss suffered due to deficiency and unfair trade practice and also the mental agony, financial loss suffered, to the complainant, within 60 days of this order.  In default to comply, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally shall pay interest at 18% p.a. on the said sum (i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-), from the date of this order till the date of payment to the complainant.
3. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally shall pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within 60 days of this order.  In default, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 shall pay interest at 18% p.a. on the said sum (Rs.5,000) from the date of this order, till the date of payment.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Complaint against opposite party Nos.3 to 7 are dismissed.
6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 19^th August 2016)