Rynjah Institute of Information Technology (RIIT),
Ropmay Building, Don Bosco square,
Laitumkhrah, Shillong-793003 represented by
Shri. I. Rynjah, its Manager
…..Appellant/opposite party
-Vs-
Smti Silda Thabah,
Lumphira, Nongmynsong
Shillong-793011,
Meghalaya
…Respondent / Complainant
Date of hearing : 20.07.2013
Date of judgment: 03.08.2013
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Per Mr. Justice P K Musahary, President.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.03.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Khasi Hills, Shillong in Consumer Case No. 36 of 2008, whereby and wereunder the Appellant/Opposite Party has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.34,560/- (Rupees thirty Four Thousand five hundred and sixty) which includes Rs.9,560/- (Rupees Nine thousand five hundred and sixty) as refund of the course fees, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand)for mental and physical agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) as litigation cost to the Respondent/Complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Claimant enrolled in the Appellant Institute to pursue studies in MSc (IT) (Lateral Course) in August 2007, on payment of Rs.10,050/- (Rupees Ten thousand and fifty). The Appellant /Opposite Party, as alleged in the complaint, was irregular in conducting the classes and the course remained incomplete. It failed to declare the results of the 3rd semester. Yet, the Appellant/Opposite Party realized Rs.9,560/- (Rupees nine thousand five hundred and sixty) from the Respondent/Claimant on 05.04.2008 for 4th semester. The Appellant Institute could not conduct classes for want of qualified staff. To compensate the loss she suffered due to negligence and deficiency in service, the Respondent/ Claimant demanded payment of Rs. 1,84,110/- (Rupees one lakh eighty four thousand one hundred and ten), on various counts, including Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand), as compensation for mental and physical agony. The Appellant contested the claim by filing written statement as well as by adducing documentary and oral evidence. On consideration of pleading and evidence adduced by the parties and also upon hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum passed the impugned order awarding compensation as mentioned above.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records received from the learned District Forum.
The learned District Forum , framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the complaint petition is maintained in the present form?
(ii) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
(iii) Whether there is negligence or deficiency in service by the Opposite Party?
(iv) Whether the Complainant is entitled to any compensation?
(v) Any relief entitled to by the Complainant?
4. Issues number (i) and (ii) above have been decided in the affirmative and we find no ground to disagree with the learned District Forum.
5. Issue number (iii) is the key issue involved in this case. This issue, in our view, would decide the fate of the entire case. We, therefore, feel it necessary to have a review on it based on the pleadings and evidence on record.
6. The admitted position on the factual aspect is that :-
(i) The Appellant is a Distant Learning Centre of the Punjab technical University governed by the rules and regulations framed by the Distant Education Council established under Section 16 (7) read with Section 5 (2) of the IGNOU Act 1985.
(ii) The Respondent/Claimant enrolled herself into the 3rd and 4th semester.
(iii) The Respondent/Claimant duly deposited the fees for the course.
(iv) The Appellant Institute issued admission notice in the local English Daily “The Shillong Times” dated 13.08.2007 quoting the salient features of various courses which included holding of classes two hours on daily pattern (500 plus hours of study).
7. The main deficiency in service, as complained by the Respondent/Claimant, are that the Appellant, inspite of assurance held out, did not hold regular classes and the course remained incomplete. Even the results of the 3rd semester were not declared by the Appellant.
8. First we would like to appreciate the evidence on record in respect of the 3rd semester. The Complainant examined herself as a witness. Her evidence is that she has been serving as a carpenter instructor in St.Peter’s School. Having seen the advertisement in The Shillong Times dated 13.08.2007, she took admission in the Appellant Institute and paid Rs.10,050/- (Rupees Ten thousand and fifty) for the 3rd semester by taking loan from a Bank. The Appellant Institute promised that it would conduct classes from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. but they changed it later from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. There were four students and only two of them attended classes. From the very evidence of the Complainant it has been proved that the Appellant Institute conducted classes in as much as two students, out of four, attended the classes. By her own oral evidence, the Respondent/ Claimant has disproved her allegation/charge of none holding of classes brought against the Appellant. Further, as per her own evidence the Respondent/Complainant was working as a carpenter instructor in a school. The Complainant has not stated or proved that she obtained due permission from the school authority for taking up the course in question during school hours. No evidence has been adduced to that effect. Obviously, for want of such proof or evidence, the Commission can draw a legal inference that the Respondent/Claimant could not attend the classes due to her preoccupation as a teacher in St. Peter’s School. The Appellant Institute is not to be blamed for her inability or default in attending the classes.
9. The Opposite Party (present Appellant) examined one Mr.Salim Khan as D.W.1. He is the course coordinator of the Institute. He produced the relevant attendance register (exhibits 1) and got it proved in the District Forum, Shillong. This witness categorically stated that the Complainant (present Respondent) did not attend a single class in the 4th semester. This witness also states that the Respondent/Claimant did not come to collect the study material.
10.The Opposite Party (present Appellant) also examined one Smti. Amandy Jane Thangkhiew as D.W. 2. She stated that she was studying MSc (IT) 3rd semester in the Appellant Institution. According to her evidence, classes were held regularly on every alternate days and she attended the classes regularly. As a student, she was satisfied with the teaching of courses in the Institute. However, she had no knowledge about the 4th semester. This D.W. 2 is an independent witness. Her evidence supports the evidence of D.W. 1 and proves the fact that the Appellant conducted regular classes in the 3rd semester. We have found that the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 could not be demolished by the Complainant.
11.We have noted that the Complainant examined no witness to support her charge that the Appellant failed to conduct regular classes or complete the course. In the course of argument, Mr.N.Mozika, learned counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the Respondent/Complainant could not come out successfully in the 3rd semester. Infact, in paragraph 7 of the written statement, the Opposite Party (present Appellant) categorically stated that the Complainant recorded a poor performance in her examination and could not clear 3 papers. We have already found from the evidence on record that the Complainant never attended the classes in the 3rd semester and therefore, it was not unlikely that her performance was poor. This being the position, the charge levelled by the Complainant that the Appellant failed to declared the result of 3rd Semester must fall flat.
12.In respect of fourth semester, there is no denial of the fact that the claimant took admission by paying the fees but here again one should not be oblivious of the fact that the claimant was still serving as a teacher in St. Peter’s School at the relevant point of time. As discussed earlier, she could not attend the classes conducted by the Appellant as she had a clash in the timing between her working hours in the said school and class hours in the Institute. Should the Appellant be blame for this situation?
13.Having taken the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence on records, we are not persuaded to accept or agree with the findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned District Forum in respect of issues No. (iii) and (iv). In our considered view, there is no deficiency of service making the Appellant/Opposite party liable to refund the amount paid by the Claimant as fees for the course and pay compensation as directed by the learned District Forum. We express sympathy to the Respondent/Claimant that she took loan from the Bank for persuing the course but as a Court, we cannot pass any order in favour of any party out of sympathy alone, unless a case is made out to grant relief(s) sought for.
14.In view of the above we set aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, East Khasi Hills, Shillong in Consumer Case No. 36 of 2008. This appeal
accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. Parties shall bear their own cost. Return the L.C.R. immediately. Registry shall refund the statutory deposit of Rs 17,280/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand two hundred and eighty) to the Appellant.
