By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The sum up of the complaint:<br /> The Complainant is influenced by the publications to join in the Institute conducted by the Opposite Party. He was admitted there for Secretarial Practice Course affiliated to KGTE. The duration of the course was 10 months including training of one month. The fees levied for the Course was Rs.11,000/- comprising the examination fee Rs.500/-. The classes handled were not proper. There were not sufficient teachers to train the students. The course was completed on 15.7.2002. Even after completion of course duration the entire portion were not covered . The application sent for the examination of the course was not effectively done and apart from that the examination of the two courses were conducted in two different places on the same day. The Opposite Party also conducted one examination by himself instead of KGTE. The Complainant had<br /> (Contd ... 2)<br /> - 2 -<br /> lost one year due to the defective and deficient service of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had not given any training after the completion of the course, though it was assured at the time of admission. The admission of the Complainant was for the secretarial Practice. The hall ticket issued was for the examination of Computer Word Processing. Ultimately the Complainant has lost two years in his career. The Complainant is to be refunded Rs.11,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% from 15.10.2001 till the date of payment. In addition to that the Complainant is to be compensated with Rs.1,00,000/- and the cost incurred on him for the complaint.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party made their appearance up on notice and filed version. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant was a student admitted in the Institute and the course for which admission sought was also the Secretarial Practice during the period 2001 - 2002. No assurance was given on the side of the Opposite Party to the Complainant that the course had the <br /> approval of KGTE. The Secretarial Course conducted in the institution had no affiliation to KGTE and further the Complainant was not told that the Secretarial Course had no government recognition. The Opposite Party gave all the assistance to the Complainant to appear for the examination of Computer as per STED Project, Government. The Complainant had also applied for other examination that were Computer Word Processing, Accountancy, Business Organizations and Secretarial Practice and hall tickets were also issued to the Complainant. The role of the Opposite Party to train a student for examination was effectively done. The institute conducted by the Opposite Party is a reputed one which started its function from 1970. (The knowledge imparted to the student from the Opposite Party's institute is having its own reputation). There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complaint is with the motivation to tarnish the reputation of the Opposite Party's Institute and complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory costs.<br /> (Contd.... 3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> Points that are to be considered are:<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party?.<br /> 2.Whether the Complainant is to be compensated?.<br /> 3.Relief and costs.<br /> <br /> Point No.1 and 2: <br /> The Point No.1 and 2 are to be considered together. The Complainant was examined as PW1. Ext. A1 to A8 were marked by the Complainant. According to the Opposite party he has been running the Institution for long period. The concerned Secretarial course was started on 3.09.2001. The Complainant was influenced to join for the course on seeing the advertisement and the reliability of the governing body exposed in prospectus. It is admittedly seen that the <br /> Complainant had been a student for Secretarial course Typewriting English Lower, Computer Word Processing, Shorthand English Lower, Accountancy, Business Organization and Secretarial Practices. Ext.A1 is the prospectus given by the Opposite Party. The fees decided for the concerned courses were Rs.11,000/- per year. Ext. A8 series are the photocopies of the receipts given to the Complainant by the Opposite Party. As per this receipts the fees given by the Opposite Party is Rs.10,500/- The Complainant was admitted for the courses agreed by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party received the consideration for rendering the services. (The Complainant aspirant of getting training and coaching for the certificate of qualifications which should have its on validity). The contention of the Opposite Party is that it was not claimed by him that the courses had any affiliation. Nothing was brought out in such a way that the Institute had any affiliation. It is highly immature concept that at present a student will join for a course which gives valueless certificate. The Opposite Party is having the right to conduct an Institute in order to give coaching for the candidates to appear for the examination conducted by the Legally Authorized Agency.<br /> (Contd....... 4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> Ext.A2 is the mark list issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. Similarly a certificate awarding the Diploma in Secretarial Practice is given to the Complainant towards the end of the studies on appearing examination. Ext.A4 is the certificate issued to the Complainant. Whether the Opposite Party is empowered legally to given a Diploma Certificate in Secretarial Practice to a candidates. What authenticity is vesting upon the Opposite Party to give a certificate as it was issued to the Complainant. The Opposite Party who is examined as OPW1 has deposed that government conducts examination for Secretarial Practice and Computer MS course. The responsibility rest upon the institute to give coaching to the student and to make them appear for the examination conducted by the Authorized Agency. On cross examination of the Opposite Party, it is admitted that the person included in the Board Directors are renowned persons of the locality. The credibility of the Institution among the aspirant student is triggered on seeing the prospectus.<br /> <br /> It is seen that the Opposite Party is not legally empowered to issue the Diploma Certificate to a student. The Opposite Party deposed on cross examination Cu c­Wv kÀ«n^n¡äpIÄsIm­Wv ]cmXn¡mc³ tPmen¡psN¶m³  tPmen In«nà  10,000 cq] sImSp¯v C§\s¯ kÀ«n^n¡äv X¶m Rm\msW¦n  k½Xn¡nÃ. It is admittedly seen that the service rendered on accepting fees is absolutely defective and improper, apart from that the person who is conducting an institute and offering coachings for different courses at a time is to be vigilant of the method of examination and its time. Admitting a student for different courses and the examination of this different course if held at a time the student will not be able to appear examination. Here in the Complainant could not appear for the examinations which were held at two different places at the same time. The Opposite Party was not anticipated of the time of examinations and apart from that the aim of the student was not appropriately weighed and considered by the Opposite Party. The aspirant student who is admitted for a course must not be deprived of enjoying the fruit of his labour. The effort<br /> (Contd.........5)<br /> - 5 -<br /> of the Complainant and the money that was spent for the education in that respect became worthless. The point No.1 and 2 are found infavour of the complainant. As a result the Opposite party is ordered to return Rs. 10,500/- (Rupees Ten thousand Five hundred only) to the Complaint with an interest at the rate of 9% from 15.7.2002 till the payment of the amount. The Complainant is also entitled for Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and other cost. If the Opposite Party fail to comply with this order within one month, the Complainant is entitled to execute the order and realise the amount.<br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 3rd day of October 2007.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for Complainant:<br /> PW1 Elyas Complainant.<br /> <br /> Witnesses for Opposite Party:<br /> OPW1. Rajan Thomas Director, SMIAS, S. Bathery.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for Complainant:<br /> A1. Prospectus <br /> A2. Mark Sheet dt:01.10.2002.<br /> A3. Letter dt:13.08.2003.<br /> A4. Certificate dt:01.10.2002.<br /> A5. Certificate <br /> A6. Hall Ticket<br /> (Contd.......6) <br /> - 6 - <br /> A7. Hall Ticket<br /> A8 Series.<br /> (10 in numbers) Fee receipts <br /> <br /> Exhibits for Opposite party:<br /> <br /> B1. Feedback form dt:11.7.2002.<br /> <br /> B2. Feedback form dt:20.9.2002.<br /> <br /> B3. Application for Admission dt:14.8.2002.<br /> <br /> <br />