IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 11th day of May, 2011
Filed on 03.08.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.172/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Miss. Aswathy Shyam 1. The Proprietor, Imperial College
Kadampanattu Koyickal Mavelikara
Kaitha South, Chettikulangara P.O.
(By Adv. N.Manmadhan) 2. Sri. Ajith Kumar, Principal
Imperial College, Mavelikara
3. Sri.Ninan Ninan, Manager
Imperial College, . Maveliakara
4. Smt.Renu Ninan, Director
Imperial College, Mavelikara
(By Adv.Stephen J. Daniel – for
Opposite parties 1, 3 and 4)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
MAJORITY VIEW
Kumari Aswathy Shyam has filed this complaint before the Forum on 03.08.2010,alleging deficiency in service and gross negligence on the side of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:- She took admission in the Imperial College, Mavelikara run by the opposite parties for M.Com. P.G. Course for the period 2009-2010, on 5.8.2009. The previous year classes of the PG Course commenced on 10.09.2009. As per the instruction of the 2nd opposite party – Principal of the said College, she had remitted a sum of Rs.15,00/- in the month of September, 2009 and submitted all the necessary documents for registration of her name in the University – M.G. University, Kottayam for the said exam. As per the further instruction of the 2nd opposite party, she had given prescribed application form for registration duly filled up together with the original T.C., Provisional Degree Certificate and other documents for the registration of her name in the said University. She was prompt in payment of Tuition fee payable to the opposite parties. As such, she had remitted a sum of Rs.8,000/- as Tuition fee for the academic year of September, 2009 to March 2010, together with other fees. The examination for M.Com. previous was schedule by the University from 23.06.2010 to 14.07.2010. Since the Hall Ticket for the said examination was issued from the examination centre on 21.6.2010, she contacted the examination centre for collecting the Hall Ticket. But she could not obtained the Hall Ticket from the centre and they could not allowed her to attend the University exam. Since she had not obtained any positive steps from the opposite parties, she contacted the University authorities at Kottayam. The University authorities had informed her that her name was not registered in the University for the said course of M.Com. P.G. 2009-2010. Immediately she contacted the opposite parties and intimated the details, and requested the opposite parties to return the original documents for registration for the said exam., by remitting super fine along with original certificates. But the opposite parties were indifferent and taken an irresponsible attitude in this matter by way of neglecting to return the documents after raising unfair and unjust excuses. She had lost one important year of academic career and sustained damages, mental pain and hardship. She had not obtained any positive steps even though she had sent Advocate notice to the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint seeking relief.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 entered appearance before the Forum and filed objection. 2nd opposite party absent. Considering the absence of the 2nd opposite party, he is declared as exparte, by this Forum on 28.09.2010.
3. In the objection of the opposite parties 1, 3 and 4, they have stated that 3rd and 4th opposite parties jointly conducting the ‘Imperial College’ and they are conducting Tuition classes for private registration, students as well as College going students. The 2nd opposite party have no connection with the institution and never acted as Principal. It is stated that the complainant was a tuition student of the institution for M.Com. P.G. course, for the period 2009-2010, and denied the remittance of registration fee by the complainant and acceptance of certificates by the 2nd opposite party. It is stated they never gave any instruction to her to submit the original certificates or any registration fee, for the said exam. and they never took any responsibilities in connection with the University and candidates and they are not bound to do the same for any students studying in the institution. It is further stated that it was the complainant’s duty to register with the University at proper time and make sure the same and that they are not responsible for latches if any. They have no connection with the Exam. Registration and that there was no deficiency, imperfection or inadequacy in service. She had not requested the opposite parties for the return of the original certificates, and she is not entitled to get any compensation from them.
3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service, negligence on the side of the
Opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite
parties?
3) Regarding the costs and other relief.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of her case and produced documents in evidence and she has been cross examined by the opposite parties as PW1. Documents – Exts.A1 to A7 produced by the complainant and marked the same. Ext.A1 is the Advocate notice dt. 2.7.2010 issued to the opposite parties by the complainant. It shows the whole matter of this issue and her request to settle the case by way of payment of compensation of Rs.4.5 lakhs. Ext.A2 is the list of the students for the course of M.Com. during the period 2009-2010, and the details of documents produced by the students. The list further shows that the complainant’s name was the 6th in the list and shows that she had produced Transfer Certificate and Provisional Certificate. The list further shows that the total students appeared for the said PG Course (M.Com.) was 34 Nos. and the list shows the names of other candidates for the course of M.A. English and M.Sc. The above list was prepared in the sheet of Imperial College, Mavelikara. Ext.A3 is the postal receipt for the registered letter sent to Sri.Ajith Kumar, Principal, Imperial College by the complainant. Ext.A4 is the postal receipts for the registered letter sent to Sri.Ninan, Manager of the said institution and to the Proprietor of the institution. Ext.A5 is the acknowledgement card of the letter sent to Sri. Ninan, Manager of the said institution by the complainant. Ext.A6 series are the Receipts (8 Nos.) issued to the complainant from the office of the opposite parties in connection with the course of M.Com. previous, towards the admission fee and registration fee etc. Ext.A7 is the original identity card issued to the complainant after signed by the Principal of the institution. The card shows that the date of admission was 9.9.2009 for the 1st M.Com.
5. Opposite parties have filed proof affidavit in support of their case and examined the 3rd opposite party and cross examined by the complainant as RW1 and examined one witness as RW2. Opposite parties have produced 3 documents and marked the same as Exts.B1 to B3, Ext.B1 is the copy of the reply notice, Ext.B2 is the postal receipt and Ext.B3 is the acknowledgement card.
6. We have examined the whole matters involved in this case in detail and perused the documents filed by both sides and examined depositions of PW1, RW1 and RW2and heard the case in detail. The complainant was a student of the Imperial College run by the opposite parties for the M.Com Course for the period 2009-2010. It is alleged that, as per the instruction of the 2nd opposite party, she had remitted Rs.1500/- in the month of September, 2009 for the registration of her name for above said exam. and submitted the original necessary documents forwarding the same to the M.G. University, Kottayam. As per Ext.A2 document, the name of the complainant is included in the list as 6th student for the said exam. and shows the details of documents submitted for registration purpose. The receipt No.87 dt. 28.8.2009 shows the remittance of Rs.1500/- towards the registration fee for the said previous exam. Since she had not obtained the Hall Ticket for the said exam. she contacted the University authorities and from there she learnt that the said institution had not registered her name in the University. Her attempt to appear for the said exam. by way of remitting super fine was not fulfilled due to the negligent and irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties to return the original documents to her in time. It is alleged that she could not attend the exam. and lost one academic year which adversely affected her future prospects. The complainant had joined the institution of the opposite parties for the said M.Com. Course, after remitting the required fees as directed by the opposite parties. Ext.A6 series documents shows the remittance of fees and additional fee and for registration fee etc. But the opposite parties have not taken a responsible attitude to register her name in the University in time, even though the opposite parties had collected the registration fee and other original documents from her. Ext.A2 document shows that there are 34 students are registered for the M.Com. previous exam. and they have written the said exam. as per the schedule of exam. But the complainant could not appear for the said exam. The opposite parties are fully bound to register her name in proper time before the University along with other students. The opposite parties cannot evade from this responsibility of registering her name for the said exam. It is alleged that through the office of the opposite parties, the registration procedure were taken by the them for the entire students of the M.Com. previous exam., except the complainant’s name. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for this latches, and they cannot escape from this liability. Hence after considering the entire facts of this issue, we are of the strong view that the opposite parties had not taken any sincere effort to register the complainant’s name for the said exam. in time. This is to be treated as culpable negligence and grossest deficiency in service and it will amounts to cheating. We have carefully examined the deposition of the RW1 in detail. The contentions raised by the opposite parties cannot be accepted as valid ground for non-registration of the complainant’s name for the said exam. The contentions raised by the opposite parties regarding this issue have no merits and it lacks bona fides. There is no justification on the part of the opposite parties regarding the contentions of now – registration of the name of the complainant before the University. Due to the latches of the opposite parties in taking proper registration of the complainant’s name in the said exam. in proper time, she lost one important year of her academic career and sustained mental agony and sufferings. This is to be treated as a serious matter. The whole action taken by the opposite parties in this issue are wholly illegal, unauthorized and arbitrary. After verification of the whole matters of this case, we are of the further view that the allegations raised by the complainant are to be treated as highly genuine and for this, she is entitled to get compensation and cost from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for this negligence and deficiency in service and they are fully liable to pay compensation to the complainant. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant. Hence for the ends of justice, the complaint is allowed.
In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant for her mental agony, pain, sufferings, inconvenience and loss of one academic year, due to the culpable negligence, grossest deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and cheating by way of latches on the part of the opposite parties in taking appropriate proceedings to register the name of the complainant before the University in time and refusal to releasing the original certificates already collected from the complainant by the 2nd opposite party for the registration purpose, and further pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of this proceedings. Considering the whole facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the strong view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay punitive costs to the complainant. So we direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as punitive cost to the complainant. We further ordered that opposite parties shall take urgent necessary steps to collect the duplicate copies of the said certificates from the concerned institutions at the cost of the opposite parties and shall hand over the same to the complainant. We further ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite parties for the realization of the above said amounts. We further direct the opposite parties to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 11th day of May, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
Dissenting View
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant was an M.Com student in 2009 of the Imperial College run by the opposite parties. As has been instructed from the office of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.l500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only), and produced all the relevant documents namely the provisional degree certificate, TC, CC etc. for the purpose of getting herself enrolled in M.G. University by the opposite parties. The complainant remitted the entire tuition fee due in the academic year 2009-2010 with the opposite parties. There after, the university scheduled M.Com previous examination, and on 21st June 2010, the hall tickets for the said examination were being issued through the concerned examination centers. The complainant went to the examination centre to collect her hall ticket. The complainant's hall ticket was not there, and as such, she was not allowed to attend the examination. On enquiry, it was learned that she was not got enrolled as an M.Com student in the University. The opposite parties were contacted, but their response was discouraging. The complainant demanded back her documents from the opposite parties. The complainant caused to send a legal notice. All her attempt was of no avail. The complainant lost money and a year of valuable academic career. Her future prospect of a study without the documents and certificates also fell in peril, the complainant alleges. The opposite parties are accountable for her loss. The service of the opposite parties is deficient. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On being notices sent, the opposite parties save the 2nd one turned up and filed joint version. The contention of the opposite parties is that the 'Imperial College' is mere a tutorial college that giving tuition classes to private and college going students. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties are husband and wife, and they are running the material institution. The 2nd opposite party is a total stranger to the opposite parties' college. He has never acted as its principal nor had any link or attachment with the college. Mr. K.V. Varghese was its principal. Consequent to his demise, the administrative as well as academic affairs are being managed by the 3rd and 4th opposite parties, the opposite parties submit. The complainant was the M.Com student of the college during 2009-10. She was availing tuition classes for her subjects from the institution. The opposite parties never instructed the complainant to produce or entrust any certificates or money to any person for the purpose of registration in the University. The opposite parties never used to take such responsibility. Even the university rules do not permit the same. It is the duty of every student to get their name registered with the University. The opposite parties only take up the responsibility of offering guidance and coaching to such students. If the complainant entrusted her certificates and money to the 2nd opposite party on her own will, the other opposite parties are not responsible for the consequences if any. The complainant had not entrusted any document or money as to her registration with the opposite parties for M.Com course with the university. The opposite parties never accepted the same as well. As such, there is no deficiency, imperfection or inadequacy as alleged by the complainant. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties assert.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant herself as PWl, and the documents Exts. Al to A7 were marked. Ext. Al is the copy of the lawyer's notice, A2 is the copy of the document issued from the opposite parties' office,A3 is the lawyer's notice returned by the 2nd opposite party, A4 is the postal receipts, A5 is the acknowledgement card, A6 is the tuition fee receipts and A7 is the student identity card. On the side of the opposite parties, the 3rd opposite party and former student of the Imperial College were examined as RWl & RW2 respectively, and the documents Exts. B1 to B3 were marked. Ext B1 is the copy of the reply notice, B2 is the postal receipt and B3 is the acknowledgement card.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties the questions crop up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant produced her valuable documents and money before the opposite parties for the purpose of getting registered with the M.G University?
(2) If so, whether the opposite parties failed to get the complainant enrolled with the University?
(3) Compensation and cost?
5. Complainant was a student of the Imperial College run by the opposite parties. It appears that the said aspect is neither denied nor disputed. The crux of the complainant case is that the complainant entrusted her valuable certificates and Rs.1500/-( one thousand five hundred) with the opposite parties to get herself enrolled with the M.G. University. She did so in line with the instruction from the office of the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties neither made it a point to get her registered in the University nor to return the certificates and the amount to the complainant. The academic career of the complainant went haywire. We carefully perused the materials placed on record by the parties. Seemingly, the principal contention of the opposite parties is that the 2nd opposite party never acted as the principal of the Imperial College nor was he attached to the said institution in any manner. The said specific plea is seemed to have vigorously advanced by the opposite parties even from the primary phase of the pre-litigation procedures. In the Ext.B1 reply notice itself, the opposite parties emphatically took the said contention as to the 2nd opposite party to the fag end of the proceedings. In this context it is worthwhile to notice the particular premise of the complainant case: The definite plea of the complainant is that, she entrusted the certificate and the registration fee on the instruction from the 2nd opposite party office. Surprisingly enough, still the complainant has not resorted to any meaningful steps till the closing stage of the procedures in the instant case to refute the opposite parties' contention that the 2nd opposite party is a stranger to their college. When the opposite parties, with particular emphasis took the definite plea that the 2nd opposite party has never acted as its principal or an office bearer, and have been so pleading since the very earlier stage, and again, when the complainant fails to show other wise, we are of the view that the root of the complainant case itself is decimated.
6. Going down to the other contentions, the obvious version of the opposite parties is that the Imperial College has been giving only guidance and coaching to college going students and private students. According to the opposite parties, they never used to take up the responsibility of causing students enrolled in the University. Even the University rules do not permit the same. It is the bounden duty of each and every student to get enrolled themselves in the university on their own. As such, there is no occasion for the college to accept any materials or fee for registration as alleged by the complainant, the opposite party asserts. As per the opposite parties, for every amount collected by the college, receipts to the said effect would be issued. Keeping in view the said contentions, we effected a searching survey of the materials placed on record. Going by the available materials, it appears that the complainant has produced Ext. A6 series receipts of the tuition fee she remitted with the college which only fortify the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant was only a tuition class student of their college. At the same time, it is significant to note that she has not brought on record any evidence worth a paper to show before us that she has entrusted her documents or fee amount with the opposite parties. More over it is worthier to notice that the complainant has no consistent case on what date she entrusted the documents and fee amount with the opposite parties. Interestingly, in the proof affidavit she pleads September and in the complaint she states December. What's more she again has no definite case as to which particular person she entrusted her certificates and the fee amount in question. It is all the more significant to see that the complainant has neither pleaded nor proved that anyone of her classmates or college mates similarly entrusted his/her certificates and registration fee with the opposite parties in the similar fashion as acted by the complainant. On the other hand, in order to further the opposite parties' case, the opposite parties caused a former student mount the box and he deposed before this Forum as RW2. RW2 emphatically asserted that he was a student of the Imperial College in the year 2007-09, and in the said college, the students themselves are to register them with the University. The opposite parties have no sort of role in the said process, RW2 asserts. As such, he himself had got him enrolled in the university. He firmly added that, as far as his knowledge, the 2nd opposite party, at no point of time was the principal of the Imperial College. Notwithstanding a searching cross examination by the complainant, nothing consequential in favour of the complainant was brought out. Needless to say, except the interested testimony of the complainant, not even a scrap of evidence was let in by the complainant to bring home her allegation. We regret, we are not in a position to accept the allegations of the complainant without something more to substantiate the same. In the absence of any material to bolster up or the least bit to support the allegations of the complainant, and in view of the opposite parties' definite plausible version which is further underlined by RW2, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant case must fail.
For the forgoing facts and findings made herein above, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 11th day of May, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Aswathy Shyam (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the Advocate notice dt. 2.7.2010
Ext.A2 - List of the students for the course of M.Com. for the period
2009-2010
Ext.A3 & A4 - Postal receipts
Ext.A5 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.A6 series - Receipts (8 Nos.)
Ext.A7 - Original identity card
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Ninan Ninan (Witness)
RW2 - Pradeep G. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the reply notice
Ext.B2 - Postal Receipt
Ext.B3 - Acknowledgement card
O R D E R
The matter has been heard in detail and judgment was drawn up. The other two Members of the Forum dissented with the conclusion arrived on by the President. The Members so prepared a common order and the President drew up a separate one. As per Section 142 A of Consumer Protection Act, the view of the majority of the District Forum will prevail, and that shall be the Forum’s final order.
In view of the above, the complaint stands allowed.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
