Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/14/1324

Sri. Manjunatha A - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Ramanamurthy - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 25.07.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 30.05.2018

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.1324/2014

DATED THIS THE 30^th MAY OF 2018

PRESENT

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Manjunath.A

S/o Late Aruvanna,

Aged about 39 years,

R/at Sira Gate,

Tumakuru

By Adv.Sri.T.N.Manjunath     

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

1. Sri.Ramanamurthy,

Manager,

City Academy of Distance Education, Professionals Studies, Educators India (CESTI),

No.598, 2^nd floor,

MKK Main road, Mariyappanapalya,

Rajajinagar,

Bengaluru  

2. Sri.Rambabu @ Ram Ravipalli

The Manager,

City Academy of Distance Education, Professionals Studies, Educators India (CESTI),  

6-2-654/11, Above Allwin Hospital, 3^rd floor,

Opp:Shadan College, Chintalbasti, Khairtabad, Hyderabad – 560004.

Andhra Pradesh.

By Advocates

M/s.M.T.Nanaiah Associates

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1 & 2 (herein after referred as Op.no.1 & 2 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to pay the entire amount of Rs.1,20,000/- which was received from the Complainant with interest at 18% p.a. from 11.02.12 till its realization. Further direct them to pay Rs.1 lakh towards mental shock and agony with interest at 18% p.a.

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, the Ops have given their advertisement in newspaper with respect to their Distance Education regarding Admissions for PH.D courses by inviting the applications from the interested persons. On seeking the said notification, the Complainant, impressed and he developed interest to take admission for Ph.D course in the Ops institution, hence the Complainant contacted the Ops over phone for which Ops have sent the details through email and sought for deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- for admission to said course. It is the case of the Complainant that, as per the guidelines given by the Ops, the Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- through cheque dtd.11.02.12 in the name of City Academy. After six months of the said deposit amount further the Ops have demanded the Complainant and sought for deposit further Rs.40,000/-, accordingly the Complainant had deposited the said amount of Rs.40,000/- to the account stands in the name of Educators India on 16.08.12 through his banker Canara Bank and after one month further the Ops have demanded to deposit further a sum of Rs.50,000/- accordingly the Complainant had deposited the said amount of Rs.50,000/- through NEFT. The Complainant further submits that, later the Complainant made several attempts to contact the Ops to get the books, guide and other accessories to complete his Ph.D course, but the Ops failed to give any proper reply and also the Ops did not send any accessories to the Complainant as agreed by them and thereby showed their deficiency of service and negligent act. The Complainant further submits that, later on enquiry the Complainant came to know that, the Ops with intent to grab the money and also to cheat the public at large have issued a false and frivolous notification in Newspaper and also false email ID, due to act of Ops the Complainant lost his money and also he lost his interest to study the Ph.D course. In this context, he got issued legal notice dtd.28.02.14. The said notice sent to Op.no.1 returned with a shara as ‘door locked, but the notice sent to Op.no.2 has been duly served, but not complied. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

3. On receipt of the notice, Op.no.1 & 2 did appear and filed version.  The sum and substance of the version of the Ops are that, they are mere guidance and coaching centre and not an institution, which is being administered in terms of any provisions of law, enactments and rules framed there under by any State or Central Government. Equally it do not fit in to the definition of a manufacturer or a consumer. The student seeking admission in to a course of a private University by taking the help and guidance of a tutorial college/information & guidance centre, also do not come under the definition of the manufacturer/consumer. Ops further submit that, in the advertisement itself, the Ops have never claimed that they would be giving admission for the Phd course. It was only stated in their advertisement that the admission guidance would be given to the interesting candidates, those are willing to pursue PhD course from various universities in India, which are recognized by the UGC (University Grants Commission). The services offered by the Op academy would confine only giving full information regarding the course, guidance for the admission & coaching from the entrance examination as well as main theory examinations 7 viva in addition to various student support service activities, such as, helping the student in selecting a topic, providing a suitable & qualified guide/supervisor, conducting seminar & assignments, guidance for compiling of synopsis & thesis and other services. Ops further submit that, a candidate can straightway send the fees to the university on his own after getting the enrolment number/admission offer or can remit the fees to the Op-academy, who in turn would re-transfer the same to the concerned university on behalf of the student as a matter of service. The Complainant sought admission in CMJ University, a University established by the Government of Meghalaya in terms of Sec.2(f) of UGC Act. Ops further submit that, the Complainant approached the Op academy with a peculiar request that he would appear for the entrance test, pertaining to the PhD programme conducted by CMJ university, and for that, the Ops should provide free coaching and he would pay any sort of fee only when he get admission offer after qualifying in such entrance test. The Ops have accepted the request of the Complainant with a view to serve a deserving scholar and provided coaching & all the guidance required for processing the application of the Complainant to the university for obtaining admission in to the PhD course without receipt of any fees from the Complainant. After successful completion of the same entrance test, the admission offer letter vide registration no.80187410106313 dtd.06.01.11 was accorded by the said university in favour of the Complainant. Afterwords only, the Ops have received a part of the fees from the Complainant for the guidance & other support services as well as for the university fee and later the same university fee was remitted to the university as per the guidelines of the university by way of DD. Thus there is no misappropriation of the amounts, which were remitted by the Complainant nor does he make any specific allegation that the Ops have misutilized the amounts which were remitted by him. Ops further submit that, after the admission offer was secured for him, he never turned up any time before the Ops irrespective of repeated phone calls from the counsellors of the Op academy either to receive further guidance for completion of the courses or to pay the remaining balance of service charges/fee, but, however curiously he turns round and shows an accusing finger against them with an oblique motto, while the fact remains that umpteen times the Ops have tried to contact him through telephone calls and writing letters in so far as arranging a guide is concerned, Mr.V.Krishna Murthy, head of the Hyderabad Research Services Institute, Punjagutta, Hyderabad was also paid money and he has accepted to provide guide/supervisor of the relevant department with all the required services for topic selection and thesis compiling etc., to the Complainant, through his letter. Once the admission offer letter was obtained on his behalf, the registration number was confirmed by the university on his behalf, and the amount payable to the university remitted on his behalf and a guide/supervisor was also arranged on his behalf of the Complainant by Ops, having not availed the services and utilize the opportunity to pursue the course, the Complainant cannot say that there was deficiency of service by the Ops. Ops further submit that, the Op academy has been in the service of students since 1992 and still it is functioning on sound lines and all communication facilities are very much available to every student. It is interesting to note that the Op is still working in the same premises, where the Complainant could approach them before he has paid fees and the office of the Ops are very much there with the same phone no.8088087877 and the same email id:

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A16 and also filed written arguments. Ops produced documents as annexure I & II. We have gone through the available materials on record. Heard both side.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?    
2. What order ?

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

REASONS

          7. Point no.1:  We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by the Ops. The main grievance of the Complainant is that, Ops are found to be deficient in rendering their service with regard to take admission for PhD course in the Ops institution. The payment of fees as stated in para 3 to 4 of the complaint is not specifically denied by Ops.  The main contention taken by Ops is that, they have promptly attended with regard to the admission and also for arranging couch for his Phd course. The amount so for paid by the Complainant is already remitted to the concerned university, wherein the Complainant intends to take admission for Phd. It is also specifically stated by the Op that, the Complainant approached the Op with a peculiar request that he would appear for the entrance test, pertaining to the PhD programme conducted by CMJ university, and for that, the Ops should provide free coaching and he would pay any sort of fee only when he get admission offer after qualifying in such entrance test. In this context, Ops have accepted the request of the Complainant with a view to serve a deserving scholar and provided coaching & all the guidance required for processing the application of the Complainant to the university for obtaining admission in to the PhD course ‘without receipt of any fees’ from the Complainant. After successful completion of the same entrance test, the admission offer letter vide registration no.80187410106313 dtd.06.01.11 was accorded by the said university in favour of the Complainant. This fact is not specifically denied by the Complainant. Further, the Ops have taken specific contention that, they have received a part of the fees from the Complainant for the guidance & other support services as well as for the university fee and later the same university fee was remitted to the university as per the guidelines of the university by way of demand draft. Hence, there is no misappropriation of the amounts paid by the Complainant. After the admission offer was secured for him, he never turned up any time before the Ops irrespective of repeated phone calls from the counsellors of the Op academy either to issue further guidance for completion of the courses or to pay the remaining balance of service charges/fee. One Mr.V.Krishna Murthy, head of the Hyderabad Research Services Institute, Punjagutta, Hyderabad was also paid money and he has accepted to provide guide/supervisor of the relevant department with all the required services for topic selection and thesis compiling etc., to the Complainant through his letter as per annexure II. It is also specific case of the Ops that, once the admission offer letter was obtained on his behalf, the registration number was confirmed by the university on his behalf and the amount payable to the university remitted on his behalf and a guide/supervisor was also arranged on his behalf of the Complainant by Ops, having not availed the services and utilize the opportunity to pursue the course, the Complainant cannot say that there was deficiency of service by the Ops. In this context, we placed reliance on the contents of the annexure I which is the ‘Admission Offer Letter’ dtd.06.01.11, wherein the name of the student is shown as Mr.Manjunatha.A, who is the Complainant herein. Further it is noticed that, Op academy has been in the service of students since 1992. Further noticed that, the Op academy is still working in the same premises, where the Complainant could approach them before he has paid fees and the office of the Ops are very much there with the same phone and the same email id. If the Complainant thinks that he was being cheated and that the Ops are to grab the money, in this context, his relief ought to be elsewhere, not before this forum. When the Complainant did not respond to pursue his Phd course on paying deficit fee and also did not avail the service of his guide name called Mr.V.Krishna Murthy, he cannot put any stigma either on Op.no.1 & 2 or on his guide. The guide appointment letter is found at annexure II. The Ops have also paid substantial amount to the said guide. When the facts stood thus,  we do not find any laxity much less deficiency of service on the part of Ops, as the Ops have already informed to the Complainant that, they have already been remitted the fee to the university and the guide, as such, the return of money would not rise.  In this context, we come to the conclusion that, complaint filed by the Complainant is lacking merits, hence liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

 8. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed.   

2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.   

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 30^th May 2018).

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.Manjunatha.A, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

• NIL -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s