KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.689/04
JUDGMENT DATED.23.06.08
PRESENT:-
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1.FR.James Thennana
Principal St.Joseph’s ITC,
KoduvelyKodikulamVillage,
Thodupuzha Taluk Iddukki District.
: APPELLANTS
2. Fr.John Anikottil,
Director St.Joseph’s ITC,
KoduvelyKodikulamVillage,
Thodupuzha Taluk Idukki District
(By Adv.K.Satheesh Kumar & J.C.Stephenson)
Vs
1. Sabu S/o Sekharan Nadukudiyil house,
Kallypar P.O, Thodupuzha Taluk.
2. C.J.Thomas S/o Iype Cherukattil house,
Kodikulam P.O.,
Thodupuzha Taluk.
3. Bibu John S/o John Moozhikkachlil house,
Puthupariyaram P.O., Chittoor,
Thodupuzha Taluk.
4. Anil M.C. Muttumukkattu house,
Cheenikuzhy P.O. Thodupuzha Taluk.
5. Manoj Krishnan Kanimakkottil house,
Kumaramangalam P.O. Thodupuzha Taluk.
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- each to the complainant by way of compensation for the deficiency of service along with cost of Rs.2000/- as per order dated 20.7.04 in OP.No.5/04 of CDRF, Idukki.
2. The grievances of the complainants in brief are that they had joined for a course of Refrigeration and Air conditioning Mechanic in St.Joseph’s Industrial Trainining Centre, Koduvely of which the first opposite party is the Principal and the second opposite party is the Manager. The complainants allege that the opposite parties made them believe that the training centre had affiliation to National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) and that the course was approved by NCVT. As per the assurance of the opposite parties they had joined for the two year course during 1994 – 1996 and even after passing examination they did not get the National Trade Certificate by the NCVT. Attributing deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to refund the fees and other amounts paid along with compensation each to the complainants or in the alternative to direct the opposite parties to issue the certificates from NCVT with costs.
3. The opposite parties filed their version contending that the course was to be approved by the concerned authorities and the complainant knew that it was a new course and that it was in anticipation of sanction that they have joined for the course. It was further submitted by the opposite parties that they had done everything for getting affiliation by the NCVT and it was not their fault that the inspection was conducted only on 25.5.95 instead of conducting the same during November/December 1994 as per usual practice. It was further submitted that the NCVT had granted permanent affiliation in August 1995 and the opposite parties admitted the students only after informing them of their expectation to get affiliation in 1994 itself and there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice and hence the prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of the first complainant as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5. DWs 1 to 4 were examined on the side of the opposite parties and documents R1 to R7 were marked. Exts.X1 to X3 were also marked.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants who submitted his arguments based on the contentions taken in the version as well as the ground urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is his very case that the complainants were fully aware of the situation that the course they had attended was under consideration of the NCVT and it was bonafied believing that affiliation would be given in 1994 itself that the course was started. The learned counsel also contended that the complaint was barred by limitation as the course was completed in 1996 and the complaint was filed only in January 2004. It is his further contention that the District forum ought to have found that it was solely due to the delay in conducting inspection by the standing committee of the labour department of the Kerala Government that the affiliation from the NCVT was not given in time and as such the Forum ought to have taken note of the said situation and found that the opposite parties were not at fault in the delayed affiliation by the NCVT. It is also contended that the complainant had no case that they were not taught properly and there was any deficiency in imparting the education required for the course. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently attacked the quantum of compensation ordered by the forum as there was no evidence on the side of the complainants to show that they had suffered any loss for injury due to any act of the opposite parties.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the records we find that Ext.P1 is the basic document upon which the complainants had been admitted to the course. Ext.P1 is the prospectus of St.Joeph’s Industrial Training Centre of which the first opposite party is the Principal and the second opposite party is the Manager. In general information (Page 3) it is specifically stated “St.Joseph Industrial Training Centre was started in 1986 and it is permanently affiliated to National Council for Vocational Training Centre (NCVT Government of India”. The course offered are: 1. Electronic Mechanic; 2. Data preparation and Computer software; 3 Refrigeration and Air conditioning Mechanic. On a perusal of Ext.P1 it is no where found that the course of Refrigeration and Air conditioning Mechanic is under expectation of affiliation and that students who joined for the said course were informed by any other means that the said course was under expectation of affiliation only. According to the opposite parties/appellants this fact was informed to the complainants as well as to other students and all of them were aware of the fact that the course was not having recognition at the time of its commencement. We find no supporting material to the above contention of the opposite parties and as per Ext P1 it can only to be understood that the course had affiliation in 1994 itself ie; before the commencement of the course. The opposite parties have produced seven documents. But in no document it can be seen that at any point of time the students or other students are informed of the said situation of the course. It is really unfair trade practice to admit the students for the course which had no affiliation at the time of commencement of the course. It will be believing the prospectus that the students or their parents go to the institutions for getting admission to a course and when it is found that the said course has no affiliation to any university/ institute or council, it can only be termed as unfair trade practice. Even though the appellants would argue that they had received affiliation in 1995 the said argument would not come to their help for a course which they started in 1994 without affiliation. Hence we can only agree with the forum’s findings that there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in canvassing students by false representation.
7. The question of limitation was also stressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. We find that Ext.P5 is the letter issued by the opposite party on 31.12.02 to the effect that they were not in a position to issue the National trade Certificate. The complainants were in touch with the opposite parties for getting their certificate and it was finding that they were not going to get the certificate by letter dated.31.12.04 that the complaint was filed in January 2004 which was well within time and hence the contentions of the appellants/opposite parties that the complaint was barred by limitation is discarded by us.
8. The learned counsel vehemently argued before us that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to the complainant by way of compensation is very much on the high side as the complainant had not adduced any evidence to show that they had suffered loss or injury due to the act of the opposite parties. We see that the first complainant has given evidence as PW1 who has deposed that as the NCVT certificate was not issued, they had no benefit from the course. Apart from such a statement, the complainants had not adduced any evidence to show that they have actually suffered any loss or injury and they were denied of any employment because of the non-issuance of the NCVT certificate. The complainant had also no case that the education/ training imparted for the course was defective or deficient. In such circumstance, we find merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the forum’s order to pay Rs.25000/- each to the complainants is very much on the high side. We find that Rs.5000/- will be sufficient towards compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants in the circumstances of the case.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order dated.20.7.04 in OP.NO.5/04 of CDRF, Idukki thereby the appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay to each of the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- by way of compensation with cost of Rs.1000/-. These amounts shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amounts except cost shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. In the nature and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs in the present appeal.
S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
R.AV
