BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 13.07.2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR  :       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M :      LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 1156/2019

ORDER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

01.    The opposite party has filed this Appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order dated: 12.03.2019 passed in C.C. No.814/2016 by the Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.

02.    The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the commission below.

03.    Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties.    

04.    The District Commission after enquiring into the matter had partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,86,000/- to the complainant along with 8% interest per annum from 02.07.2015 till realization and Rs.25,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

05.    Aggrieved by this order, opposite party had filed this Appeal.

06.    Perused the impugned order and the grounds urged in the Appeal.   The brief facts of the Appeal is that, on 02.07.2015 the complainant was enrolled at OP – institution for B.Sc. course in Interior Designing and paid Rs.1,86,000/- towards annual fee to the opposite party.  While admission the OP-institution was affiliated to Karnataka State Open University and thereafter the institution changed the affiliation without giving any oral and written communication to the complainant.  In July-2015 two weeks holiday was declared by the opposite party and learnt that, the affiliation of KSOU was withdrawn by UGC.  Further it was contended that, the Appellant Institution declared two months study holidays from 01.11.2015 to 01.01.2016 and no examination was conducted by the opposite party.  On 20.02.2016 complainant got information that, UGC has not approved the new admissions for 2015-2016 for KSOU affiliated Universities and the said fact was hidden by the opposite party.  Though the councillor informed that, exam for both terms will be held before July 2016 no exam was conducted.  The opposite party also contended that, no transportation facility from Richmond Circle to the campus was provided for which the complainant incurred additional cost.    

07.    The grounds urged by the Appellant is that, at the time of admission the Appellant college was affiliated to KSOU and for the lapse on the part of KSOU in view of de-recognition by UGC the appellant cannot be held responsible.  On account of the tussle between the KSOU and UGC and because of de-recognition of KSOU the students who joined the course suffered a loss.  The complainant should have impleaded the KSOU and UGC as opposite parties as they are necessary parties.  The Appellant became a scape goat in the hands of KSOU and UGC.  The complainant has illegally did not continue the studies with the opposite party.  The opposite party with all their honesty, struggled hard succeeded in obtaining affiliation with Mysore University without wasting any time and by spending huge amount.  The District Forum has failed to appreciate the same and passed impugned award.  There is no deficiency on the part of the Appellant.  The District Forum has erroneously directed the appellant to compensate the complainant. 

08.    During the course of arguments, the Learned Counsel for Respondent had vehemently argued that, on believing the assurance of the opposite party, the complainant got admitted to the opposite party – institution by paying Rs.1,86,000/- towards annual fees, but thereafter she came to know that, the Ops institution changed the affiliation from Karnataka State Open University to Mysore University and they never informed the same.  As the complainant was not at all interested in studying the course affiliated by the Mysore University she requested the opposite party – institution to pay back the amount, but the OP-institution failed to comply.  Further counsel for respondent argued that, even the OP-institution had assured at the time of admission that, they shall provide pick-up and drop facility but it had failed to give the said service, so far as the District Commission had ordered to refund the part of the fee amount and no compensation was awarded, though due to the act of the opposite party one year was wasted to the complainant.  However though counsel for appellant had submitted written arguments, but failed to adduce any cogent evidence towards the allegations made by the complainant. 

09.    In the above circumstances we are of the considered view that, the quantum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages awarded by the District Forum will not suffice the ends of justice as due to the act of the opposite party the complainant had lost one academic year and had suffered lot of inconvenience.  Hence the order of District Forum needs to be modified slightly only in respect of award of damages and in our view the complainant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards damages from the opposite party and remaining award passed by the District Commission in respect of payment of Rs.1,86,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- were unaltered and accordingly the Appeal stands disposed-off.

10.    The amount kept in deposit by the appellant shall be transferred to District Commission for needful.

11.    Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.

LADY MEMBER         JUDICIAL MEMBER         PRESIDENT

KNMP*