By Sri. A. A. Vijayan, President
The above two cases are filed by two hapless students who joined for PGDCA Course under opposite parties. The allegations and evidences in both cases are almost similar and thus a common Judgement is passed, though the evidences were recorded separately in the above cases.
C.C.No.139/12
This case is filed by a student named Dhanya T., against opposite parties No.1 and 2.
1. The brief account of the allegations levelled by the complainant against the opposite parties is as follows:-
The first opposite party has been conducting an institution in Tanur under the name and style of G.Tec Computer Education and opposite party No.2 is the Administrative Office of G.Tec Computer Education, Calicut. Complainant approached the first opposite party for joining for PGDCA course and she gathered informations from the first opposite party regarding the course, it's duration and fee structure. She was made to believe by first opposite party that the duration of the course is one year and the total fee for one year is Rs.6,500/- and on completion of the course a Certificate of G.Tec will be issued. Believing the words of first opposite party she joined for PGDCA course in the Center run by first opposite party. Altogether 5000/- rupees was paid towards the fee for the course and Rs.250/- was paid for registration. At the fag end of the course she was compelled by first opposite party to sign a consent letter which revealed that at the end of the course the certificate would be issued by Gi.Tec Computer Education instead of G.Tec Computer Education and she has no objection in continuing her study for getting the certificate issued by Gi.Tec Computer Education. The first opposite party was cheating the complainant and other students making them believe that at the end of the course certificates of G.Tec Computer Education would be given and at the fag end of the course they revealed that they would give the certificate of Gi.Tec. Computer Education. This was done by the first opposite party for monetary gain. Since the first opposite party was unable to give certificate of G.Tec Computer Education there is culpable deficiency in service of the first opposite party. By denying the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education, the study of complainant for about one year and the fee paid by her went in vain. This loss was caused to complainant by the deficiency in service of first opposite party due to his gross negligence in conducting the course. Hence the first opposite party is liable to repay Rs.5,250/- paid by the complainant towards fee with 18% interest and since she lost her valuable one year on account of denial of certificate of G.Tec Computer Education as offered at the time of joining the course she is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.25,000/- for the deficiency in service of the first opposite party.
2. The first opposite party filed counter (version) as follows:-
The first opposite party was only a Franchisee of second opposite party from 31-03-2001. It is true that the complainant joined for PGDCA Course in the institution run by first opposite party which was only a Franchisee of second opposite party. After 31-03-2001 a number of students have joined this institution and completed the course and they were also given certificate as G.Tec Computer Education. But when a conflict was developed between the Chairman of G.Tec Computer Education and it's Managing Director it reached the public through newspapers and the very existences of the institution of first opposite party was in danger and thus the first opposite party decided to relieve from the Franchisee agreement made with second opposite party and for that a lawyer notice was sent to second opposite party. But that notice was refused by second opposite party. First opposite party, before taking Franchisee of Gi.Tec Computer Education, sought the opinion of the students and they gave consent to change their study to Gi.Tec Computer Education and they were ready to accept the Certificate issued by Gi.Tec Computer Education. The written consent was given by students of first opposite party including the complainant, to accept the certificate of Gi.Tec Computer Education. The allegation of the complainant that she was forced to give a consent letter is untenable and incorrect. This opposite party has never cheated either the complainant or the other students of the institution. After completing six months study the complainant willfully stopped her study and she encouraged other students to discontinue their studies. As a result of this the complainant and other four students made a complaint before Tanur Police and the Circle Inspector of Police made a suggestion that the first opposite party should repay 50% of fee collected from the students. But without accepting that proposal the complainant filed the above complaint. Thee is no deficiency in service of this opposite party. If there is any deficiency in service second opposite party is responsible for that. It is incorrect to say that she sustained loss of Rs.5,250/- which was paid as fee. Thus the complaint is to be dismissed as untenable.
3. The second opposite party filed a separate version as follows:-
This opposite party is running G.Tec Computer Education and the institution of first opposite party is only a Franchisee of this opposite party. It is true that the complainant joined for PGDCA Course on 24-08-2011 and she paid fee upto February, 2012 which comes Rs.5,000/-. The complainant is entitled to get PGDCA Certificate on completion of the course and passing of the concerned examination. It was a duty of first opposite party to secure the certificates issued by G.Tec Computer Education after the completion of the course and passing of the concerned examination, since the Franchisee agreement between the first opposite party and the second opposite party was subsisting. On the other hand while the agreement between first opposite party and second opposite party was in force, the first opposite party changed the name of the institution from G.Tec. Computer Education to Gi.Tec Computer Education. The second opposite party is not responsible for the consequences of the untimely act of first opposite party. When this opposite party was convinced of cheating by first opposite party by using a name very similar to the name of the institution of second opposite party, a case was filed by second opposite party against first opposite party before Chennai High Court and injunction was granted against first opposite party restraining him from using the name Gi.Tec Computer Education for his institution. This opposite party has never insisted complainant to give consent letter as alleged. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party in this matter. It is true that complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- towards fee till 24-08-2011. If complainant sustained any loss she can claim compensation and damages from first opposite party and since this opposite party was unnecessary dragged to the litigation this opposite party is entitled to cost of the proceedings.
4. C.C.No.140/12
The allegation of the complainant in this case is the verbatim reproduction of the allegations of the complainant in C.C.No.139/12. The only difference is regarding the total fee paid. Here the complainant has paid altogether Rs.5,458/-. The relief claimed by the complainant in this case is also similar to the relief claimed by the complainant in C.C.No.139/12.
5. The first opposite party herein is the Manager of Gi.Tec Computer Education, Chemmad. Second opposite party in both cases are same.
6. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed counter. The institution of opposite party No.1 and 2 happened to encounter of termination of Franchisee under G.Tec unexpectedly beyond their control.
7. The second opposite party filed counter with the same allegations raised in C.C.No.139/12.
8. In both cases respective complainant's were examined as PW1. In C.C.No.139/12 the fee receipts were marked as Ext.A1 to A5 series and in C.C.No.140/12 the fee receipts received by the concerned complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. The first opposite party in C.C.No.139/12 was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B13 were marked. Then opposite party No.2 the Chairman of second opposite party Company was examined as DW2 and three documents were marked on their side as Ext.B1 to B3.
9. The common points arise for consideration in these cases are:-
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service of the opposite parties as alleged by complainants.
(ii) Whether the opposite parties are liable for any compensation to complainants as claimed.
(iii) Reliefs and costs.
10. Point No.(i) & (ii):-
Admittedly opposite parties in both cases are the Franchisees of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 is running several Computer Training Centres under the name and style of G.Tec Computer Education to promote and advance the computer awareness among the students, business men, executives etc. Opposite party No.2 has granted Franchisee in respect of their business to different Franchises in different places. In C.C.No.139/12 the first opposite party is appointed as franchisee to render computer education to different categories of persons. The complainant in that C.C. has joined as a student in the institution run by opposite party No.1 in Tanur. Opposite party No.2 has given another Franchisee to opposite party No.1 in C.C.No.140/12 to conduct computer classes in Chemmad and the complainant in that case got admission in the institution run by opposite party No.1 therein for computer classes.
11. In both opposite parties, complainants made clear that they sought admission in the said respective institutions for getting computer education in computer science and also for certificates issued by G.Tec Computer Education, opposite party No.2. Admittedly the classes will be conducted by opposite party No.1 in both cases in their respective areas under the directions, guidance and guidelines. The Franchisor(opposite party No.2) is responsible for recruiting the staff for giving classes to students and for providing course materials and giving training in Software and Hardware. Ext.B1(a) which is marked on the side of opposite party No.2 in C.C.No.139/12 and Ext.B1 in C.C.No.140/12 are the photo copies of agreements executed between the Franchisor and the Franchisees. These documents reveal that all study materials for the training in Software and Hardware and proper guidance for conducting Course should be provided by opposite party No.2 and after the termination of course, examination will be conducted and successful candidates will be given the certificates by the Franchisor. Therefore the duty of the Franchisee is very limited and they should conduct classes properly under the guidance of the Franchisor. Both complainants asserted in their complaints and evidence that they joined the institution of the respective Franchisees expecting better education in computer science and prestigious certificate issued by the Franchisor. If that be so both Franchisor and Franchisees must be highly committed to protect the interest of the students joined under them.
12. Complainant in C.C.No.139/12 joined for the PGDCA Course having duration of one year on 24-08-2011 and she paid altogether Rs.5,250/- till 10-02-2012. Exts.A1 to A6 reveal the fee paid by her on different dates. Similarly complainant in C.C.No.140/12 joined for the course on 25-08-2011 and she altogether paid Rs.5,458/- on different dates towards fees. After completion of about six months, according to complainants the respective Franchisees insisted them to sign a consent letter conceding to change the course to new firm Gi.Tec Computer Education for completing the course and for getting Certificates. This document is marked as Ext.B4 in C.C.No.139/12 and Ext.B2 in C.C.No.140/12. Ext.B4 in C.C.No.139/12 is seen signed by the complainant therein on 07-03-2012. Ext.B2 in C.C.No.140/12 is seen signed by the complainant therein on 08-03-2012. In evidence the complainants asserted that they joined for the course expecting excellent education and valuable certificates issued by the Franchisor. If that be so we cannot accept that after expiry of six months of one year course and payment of a good portion of the fee the students would concede for a change accepting the education and certificate issued by new institution other than franchisee of opposite party No.2.
13. Ext.B3 notice issued by opposite party No.1 in C.C.No.139/12 indicates that they decided tto get free from the Franchisee agreement with opposite party No.2. On the ground of the internal rivalry between the Chairman and the Managing Director of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 specifically instructed that the certificates to the successful candidates should be sent to them directly by the Franchisor. After giving a form to students that effective training would be available in the institution of opposite party No.1 with the assistance and guidance of the franchisor(opposite party No.2), when they withdrew from their stand, whatever may be the justification of the parties it is to be construed as deficiency in service. If any hindrance is made to the running of the institution by opposite party No.1 in both cases on account of the internal feud of the top brass of the opposite party No.2, they should have made some arrangements to continue the course undertaken by them till the end of the course and secure the certificates issued by opposite party No.2. Here the conduct of the parties reveal that both opposite parties in both cases neglected the future of the students who approached them for better education with more expectations. If there was any serious unresolved issues amongst the opposite party No.1 and 2 or between the Chairman and Managing Director of opposite party No.2 they should have kept their disputes away for a brief period to enable the students to complete their course and secure the certificates they expected. Without considering the plight of the students like complainants in the present cases the opposite parties decided to take their own independent stands without considering the loss caused to their students. So whatever may be the reason for the dispute between the Franchisor and Franchisees in both cases they should have protected the interest of their students allowing there into complete their course and secure the certificates. Inaction on the part of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in their service. So both of them are equally liable to compensate the complainants. On mere production of two printed letters with the signature of the complainants is not sufficient to escape from their duties. Both complainants made clear in their evidence that they were insisted by opposite party No.1 in both cases to sign the consent letter as produced in the Court. It is significant to note that at the time of putting the alleged signatures in the above documents they were students in the institution run by opposite party No.1. So the stand taken by complainants that they put their signatures therein on the compulsion of opposite party No.1 in both cases cannot be discarded. The circumstances lead to inference that opposite party No.1 in both cases were in the position to influence their students to secure signatures in those documents. Therefore the disputed consent letters produced by opposite party No.1 in both cases do not absolve them of their liabilities towards the complainants.
14. It is seen from the evidence and circumstances that both complainants failed to complete their course due to the rivalry between the Franchisor and Franchisees of the institutions and moreover they lost valuable one year and their dream to secure PGDCA Diploma went in vain. So the loss sustained by the complainant cannot be redressed in terms of money alone. Therefore we hold that the complainants in both cases are entitled to get refund of the fee paid by them with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and they are also entitled to get Rs.25,000/- each as damages for deficiency in service of the opposite parties and Rs.50,000/- each as compensation for loss of one year of complainants. They are also entitled to cost of the proceedings which is quantified to Rs.5,000/- each.
15. On the basis of the findings on the above points we allow C.C.No.139/12 and C.C.No.140/12 as follows:-
16. Order in C.C.No.139/12
(i) The opposite parties shall jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.5,250/- (Rupees Five thousand, Two hundred and fifty only) to complainant therein with interest @ 12% per annum from 10-02-2012 till realization.
(ii) She is also entitled to get Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as damages on account of deficiency in service of opposite parties.
(iii) The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation for loss of one year of the complainant.
(iv) The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
(v) The above amounts shall be paid by opposite party No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant can realize the damages and compensation mentioned above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination of the above one month.
17. Order in C.C.No.140/12
(i) The complainant is entitled to realize Rs.5,458/-(Rupees Five thousand, Four hundred and fifty eight only), the fee remitted by her with interest @ 12% per annum from 17-01-2012 till realization.
(ii) She is also entitled to get Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as damages on account of deficiency in service of opposite parties.
(iii) The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation for the loss of one year of the complainant.
(iv) The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
(v) The amounts mentioned shall be paid by opposite party No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant can realize the damages and compensation awarded above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of expiry of the above one month.
Dated this 31st day of March, 2016.
A. A. VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX in C.C.No.139/12
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Dhanya.T., Complainant.
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5
Ext.A1 : Receipt dated, 24-08-2011 for Rs.250/- by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A2 : Fee receipt dated, 13-12-2011 for Rs.500/- by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A3 : Fee receipt dated, 10-11-2011 for Rs.500/- by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A4 : Fee receipt dated, 10-01-2012 for Rs.552/- by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A5(series) : Fee receipt(2 Nos.) dated, 30-09-2011 and 10-02-2012 by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A6 : Fee receipt dated, 15-02-2011 for Rs.552/- by opposite party to complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1
DW1 : Shabeeh.U.V., opposite party No.1.
DW2 : V. P. Abdul Kareem, Chairman of 2nd opposite party.
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Exts.B1 to B13
Ext.B1 : Letter dated, 01-10-2010 from Chairman of 2nd opposite party to
all G.Tec Computer Education Franchisees.
Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice dated, 25-10-2010 by counsel for 2nd opposite party to all G.Tec Computer Education Franchisees.
Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice dated, 03-03-2012 by counsel for 1st opposite party to Managing Director, M/s Glosoft Tecnologies (P) Ltd., House of G.tec.,Kozhikode.
Ext.B4 : Consent letter of complainant dated, 07-03-2012
Ext.B5 : Newspaper release dated, 16-01-2012 in Kerala Kaumudi Daily.
Ext.B6 : Photo copy of the F.I.R. Dated, 02-05-2012 prepared by Sri.Valsan.K.,
H.C., Police Station, Tanur.
Ext.B7 : Certified copy of complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangadi.
Ext.B8 : Photo copy of the F.I.R. Dated, 02-05-2012 prepared by Sri.Dinesh Koroth,
S.I. of Police, Kozhikkode Casaba.
Ext.B9 : Photo copy of the Certificate of Registration of Squadra Education Pvt. Ltd.
Ext.B10 : Returned postal cover addressed to Managing Director of opposite party.
Ext.B11 : Photo copy of the Certificate dated, 28-06-2012 of Mohammed Ashiq
from G.Tec Computer Education, Kozhikkode.
Ext.B1 2 : Photo copy of the Certificate dated, 23-11-2011 of Mohammed Shafeer
from G.Tec Computer Education, Kozhikkode.
Ext.B13 : Photo copy of the Certificate dated, 22-04-2010 of Noufal.K.
from G.Tec Computer Education, Kozhikkode.
Ext.B1(a) : Deed of Agreement between opposite party No.1 and 2
Ext.B2(a) : Injunction order dated, 05-06-2012 of High Court of Judicature at Madras.
Ext.B3(a) : Order dated, 30-10-2012 of High Court of Judicature at Madras. APPENDIX in C.C.No.140/12
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Jency.V., Complainant
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5
Ext.A1 : Receipt dated, 25-08-2011 for Rs.250/- by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A2 : Fee receipt dated, 15-02-2011 for Rs.552/- by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A3 : Fee receipt dated, 17-01-2012 for Rs.552/- by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A4 : Fee receipt dated, 17-10-2011 for Rs.552/- by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A5 : Fee receipt dated, 17-11-2011 for Rs.552/- by opposite party to complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Exts.B1 to B13
Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the Deed of Agreement between opposite party No.1 and 2
Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the consent letter of complainant dated, 08-03-2012
A. A. VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
