IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of March, 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

COMMON ORDER FOR CC Nos.191/2016, 207/2016, 208/2016, 209/2016, 210/2016, 211/2016, 236/2016, 237/2016, 293/2016 and 294/2016

DATE OF FILING : 8.7.2016

CC NO.191/2016

Between

Complainant : Vishak C.R.,

Chakkumkal House,

Neryamangalam P.O.,

Kothamangalam, Ernakulam.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. St. Alphonsa College,

T.B. Junction,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

2. Francis, S/o. Varkey,

Nellikkunnel House,

Kappu, Kumaramangalam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: K.M. Sanu)

3. The Karnataka State Open

University,

Mukthangotri, Mysore 507 006.

Represented by

The Vice Chancellor.

4. The Manager,

West Coast Educational Trust,

Kayamkulam, Kollam – 690 502.

(By Adv: Rajasimhan)

5. The Department of Education,

Kerala.

Represented by the Secretary.

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

DATE OF FILING : 21.7.2016

CC NO.207/2016

Between

Complainant : Geenumol, D/o. Shaji,

Vattappillil House,

Puthupariyaram P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. St. Alphonsa College,

T.B. Junction,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

2. Francis, S/o. Varkey,

Nellikkunnel House,

Kappu, Kumaramangalam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: K.M. Sanu)

3. The Karnataka State Open

University,

Mukthangotri, Mysore 507 006.

Represented by

The Vice Chancellor.

4. The Manager,

West Coast Educational Trust,

Kayamkulam, Kollam – 690 502.

(By Adv: Rajasimhan)

5. The Department of Education,

Kerala.

Represented by the Secretary.

DATE OF FILING : 27.7.2016

CC NO.208/2016

Between

Complainant : Gokul S. Konnat,

Kunnampurathu House,

Pannor P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. St. Alphonsa College,

T.B. Junction,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

(cont.....3)

- 3 -

2. Francis, S/o. Varkey,

Nellikkunnel House,

Kappu, Kumaramangalam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: K.M. Sanu)

3. The Karnataka State Open

University,

Mukthangotri, Mysore 507 006.

Represented by

The Vice Chancellor.

4. The Manager,

West Coast Educational Trust,

Kayamkulam, Kollam – 690 502.

(By Adv: Rajasimhan)

5. The Department of Education,

Kerala.

Represented by the Secretary.

DATE OF FILING : 27.7.2016

CC NO.209/2016

Between

Complainant : Sijomon Saji, S/o. Saji,

Mulakkasseril House,

Mundanmudi P.O., Idukki

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. St. Alphonsa College,

T.B. Junction,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

2. Francis, S/o. Varkey,

Nellikkunnel House,

Kappu, Kumaramangalam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: K.M. Sanu)

3. The Karnataka State Open

University,

Mukthangotri, Mysore 507 006.

Represented by

The Vice Chancellor.

4. The Manager,

West Coast Educational Trust,

Kayamkulam, Kollam – 690 502.

(By Adv: Rajasimhan)

(cont.....4)

- 4 -

5. The Department of Education,

Kerala.

Represented by the Secretary.

DATE OF FILING : 27.7.2016

CC NO.210/2016

Between

Complainant : Thomas, S/o. Joshy,

Alaekathadathil House,

Koduveli P.O., Kodikkulam.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. St. Alphonsa College,

T.B. Junction,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

2. Francis, S/o. Varkey,

Nellikkunnel House,

Kappu, Kumaramangalam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: K.M. Sanu)

3. The Karnataka State Open

University,

Mukthangotri, Mysore 507 006.

Represented by

The Vice Chancellor.

4. The Manager,

West Coast Educational Trust,

Kayamkulam, Kollam – 690 502.

(By Adv: Rajasimhan)

5. The Department of Education,

Kerala.

Represented by the Secretary.

DATE OF FILING : 27.7.2016

CC NO.211/2016

Between

Complainant : Stijo S,

Parackel House,

Peermade P.O., Idukki

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. St. Alphonsa College,

T.B. Junction,

(cont.....5)

- 5 -

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

2. Francis, S/o. Varkey,

Nellikkunnel House,

Kappu, Kumaramangalam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: K.M. Sanu)

3. The Karnataka State Open

University,

Mukthangotri, Mysore 507 006.

Represented by

The Vice Chancellor.

4. The Manager,

West Coast Educational Trust,

Kayamkulam, Kollam – 690 502.

(By Adv: Rajasimhan)

5. The Department of Education,

Kerala.

Represented by the Secretary.

DATE OF FILING : 12.8.2016

CC NO.236/2016

Between

Complainant : Vishnu, S/o. Raju,

Kallethanathu House,

Neendapara P.O.,

Neryamangalam, Ernakulam.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. St. Alphonsa College,

T.B. Junction,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

2. Francis, S/o. Varkey,

Nellikkunnel House,

Kappu, Kumaramangalam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: K.M. Sanu)

3. The Karnataka State Open

University,

Mukthangotri, Mysore 507 006.

Represented by

The Vice Chancellor.

4. The Manager,

West Coast Educational Trust,

(cont.....6)

- 6 -

Kayamkulam, Kollam – 690 502.

(By Adv: Rajasimhan)

5. The Department of Education,

Kerala.

Represented by the Secretary.

DATE OF FILING : 12.8.2016

CC NO.237/2016

Between

Complainant : Amal Juby Xavier,

Narikkattu House,

Rajamudy P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. St. Alphonsa College,

T.B. Junction,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

2. Francis, S/o. Varkey,

Nellikkunnel House,

Kappu, Kumaramangalam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: K.M. Sanu)

3. The Karnataka State Open

University,

Mukthangotri, Mysore 507 006.

Represented by

The Vice Chancellor.

4. The Manager,

West Coast Educational Trust,

Kayamkulam, Kollam – 690 502.

(By Adv: Rajasimhan)

5. The Department of Education,

Kerala.

Represented by the Secretary.

DATE OF FILING : 20.10.2016

CC NO.293/2016

Between

Complainant : Vishnu, S/o. Suresh,

Pulickapparambil House,

Kaliyar P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

(cont.....7)

- 7 -

And

Opposite Parties : 1. St. Alphonsa College,

T.B. Junction,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

2. Francis, S/o. Varkey,

Nellikkunnel House,

Kappu, Kumaramangalam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: K.M. Sanu)

3. The Karnataka State Open

University,

Mukthangotri, Mysore 507 006.

Represented by

The Vice Chancellor.

4. The Manager,

West Coast Educational Trust,

Kayamkulam, Kollam – 690 502.

(By Adv: Rajasimhan)

5. The Department of Education,

Kerala.

Represented by the Secretary.

DATE OF FILING : 20.10.2016

CC NO.294/2016

Between

Complainant : Deepu K.J.,

Kaippanal House,

Pothanicadu P.O., Ernakulam.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. St. Alphonsa College,

T.B. Junction,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

2. Francis, S/o. Varkey,

Nellikkunnel House,

Kappu, Kumaramangalam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(Both by Adv: K.M. Sanu)

3. The Karnataka State Open

University,

Mukthangotri, Mysore 507 006.

Represented by

The Vice Chancellor.

(cont.....8)

- 8 -

4. The Manager,

West Coast Educational Trust,

Kayamkulam, Kollam – 690 502.

(By Adv: Rajasimhan)

5. The Department of Education,

Kerala.

Represented by the Secretary.

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that,

The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have been running a professional college in the name and style, St. Alphonsa College of Engineering, Thodupuzha. Through notices and advertisements, they claimed that the course they run is recognised by 3^rd opposite party. Believing the words of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the complainant and other students joined in 1^st opposite party college for Diploma in Computer Science course in the year 2013 and successfully completed upto the 4^th semester. The ID card of the 3^rd opposite party is also issued through 4^th opposite party, the authorised agency of 3^rd opposite party, for their students. 5^th opposite party is the Government authority to ward off the students from the fake institutions.

At the time of admission and throughout 3 years, the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.51000/- as tuition fees and Rs.20000/- for travelling and other expenses. During the 2^nd year examination, the complainant and other students came to know that the course run by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties through 3^rd opposite party has not been recognised by the UGC. On 16.6.2015, UGC has issued a public notice stating that 3^rd opposite party is a university which has no recognition to conduct any course after 2012-13 and they have been conducting the course against the norms and guidelines issued by the UGC. For enquiring the matter, the complainant and other students of 1^st opposite party institution approached 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and at that time 1^st opposite party has issued a notice to the complainant's father and in this notice 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties admitted that the course run by them, where the complainant and

(cont.....9)

- 9 -

other students admitted lacks recognition of the UGC and 2^nd opposite party further offered to continue the course through Arunachal University. But on further enquiry, the parents of complainant and other students came to know that the Arunachal University is also unrecognised one. To find a solution against the cheating of opposite parties 1 to 4, the parents of the students including complainant formed an association and began to move against these opposite parties. In the result, opposite parties convened a PTA meeting on 3.12.2015 and in that PTA meeting, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties given a signed agreement to the parents of the students assuring that they would obtain UGC recognition for the course and if it is not obtained, they will compensate the students adequately. However, even 6 months after the agreement, the opposite parties 1 and 2 have not fulfilled their words and hence on 1.6.2016, the complainant along with other 28 students jointly made a complaint before the SHO, Thodupuzha and thereafter they filed another complaint before the District Collector, Idukki.

Complainant further stated that the complainant was mislead by the opposite parties through advertisements and also through prospectus and because of that, he has spent Rs.61800/- in total for the course as tuition fee, exam fee, study materials cost, lab fee and other fees. Apart from this, the complainant has also lost his valuable years. This caused much mental agony and pain and opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant adequately. Against this act of opposite parties, complainant approached the Forum and filed this complaint for getting relief such as to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund Rs.1,31,600/-, the amount that spent by the complainant towards various types of fees for studying the course for the last 2 years and also direct the opposite parties 1 to 5 to pay Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for the loss of 3 years and also for the mental agony and direct them to pay the litigation cost.

On notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed written version. In their version, opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the 3^rd opposite party is a university constituted under the Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992. It offers distant study course and the 4^th opposite party, the academic collaborative institution implement

(cont.....10)

- 10 -

programme by appointing various study centres like the 1^st opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party directly giving registration for each student including the complainant through 4^th opposite party. These opposite parties got approval through opposite parties 3 and 4 for conducting the study centre and opposite parties 3 and 4 receiving a fixed fee for registering the students and for approval of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. When the complainant was admitted in the course stated above, the sanction order dated 5.1.2012, issued by 3^rd opposite party was in force. At the time of admitting the complainant, this opposite party was included in the approval list of UGC. 1^st opposite party further contended that on 8.8.2014, 3^rd opposite party published a notification for the effect that they are decided to withdraw all type of technical and para medical programme due to the interference of UGC. Against this, various associations of study centres and collaborate institutions filed Writ Petition in various High Courts including Hon'ble Kerala High Court. The decision taken by the UGC or 3^rd opposite party is beyond the control of this opposite party and 3^rd opposite party also communicated that students who took admission before 8.8.2014 can appear for examination. UGC has obstructed 3^rd opposite party only. By migrating to other universities, the complainant can appear for examination and can continue his study. So many students were already registered to other universities and continued their course. Opposite party further contended that against the unjust act of UGC and 3^rd opposite party, they already filed suit against them and they added that if the complainant have interest, these opposite parties are ready to help for migrating him to other university and to continue his studies.

3^rd opposite party in their version contended that the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Further contended that in the case of Registrar (Evaluation) Karnataka University Vs. Poornima G. Bhandari, 1994 (2) CPC 101 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that “in conducting Examination, Valuation of answer papers and publishing results, the University cannot be considered to have performing any service for consideration and candidate cannot be regarded as a person who had hired or availed of the services of the University for a consideration. The complainant was not therefore a consumer, entitled to seek any relief under the Consumer Protection Act.” Further contended

(cont.....11)

- 11 -

that the 4^th opposite party was one of the academic collaboration of 3^rd opposite party. 3^rd opposite party further contended that as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.6.2011 filed by Registrar, 3^rd opposite party, along with written agreement executed between 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties, it was the specific responsibility of 4^th opposite party to get the recognition of the concerned regulatory body in respect of the technical and professional courses offered by it and to offer technical courses in AICTE approved colleges only. Further 1^st opposite party was not an approved studey centre of 4^th opposite party. 3^rd opposite party is not liable for the acts and omissions of the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4. Moreover, this opposite party is bound by the direction of UGC, based on their directions this University will have to function. This opposite party is not liable to refund of fee or to pay compensation as claimed by the complainant and there is no cause of action against this opposite party in this matter.

4^th opposite party in their reply version, specifically contended that the complaint is not maintainable, since it lacks pleadings or allegations against them regarding any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice. 4^th opposite party is the collaborating institution of the 3^rd opposite party functioning in Kerala for imparting training in diploma programmes through various study centres. It is functioning strictly in accordance with the condition laid down by the University in the memorandum of understanding signed with the universities and till date there is no dispute regarding in that respect. The 3^rd opposite party has study centres all over India and has been entering to the educational needs of thousands of aspiring students through the study centres. All these courses were recognised by the UGC. Later, the UGC started confining the accord of courses within the regional areas of the universities. In the light of the notice dated 24.6.2013 and other various communications, the UGC and the universities issued a notification on 8.8.2014 withdrawing certain academic courses conducted through the collaborating institution. Accordingly, the list of students studying in various centres were forwarded to the 3^rd opposite party by the 4^th opposite party and stopped further admission. These students were permitted to appear for the exam and they are still studying in various study centres of this opposite party. The association of such study centres approached before the Hon'ble High

(cont.....12)

- 12 -

Court and filed WPC No.19872/15 and in a batch of writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court was please to issue stay order against the UGC notice. Those cases are still pending with extended stay order. This opposite party did not make any false claim or advertisement. This opposite party never accepted any fee from complainant and not at all liable to the complainant. If the complainant is entitled for any claim for compensation, that is from the 3^rd opposite party.

Complainants in connected cases such as CC Nos.207/2016, 208/2016, 209/2016, 210/2016, 211/2016, 236/2016, 237/2016, 293/2016 and 294/2016 are students of 1^st opposite party college in the same course and same batch. The complainant who is examined herein as PW1 is for and on behalf of other petitioners of all these cases and are tried jointly. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which were marked as Ext.P1 to P18. Ext.P1 is the prospectus issued by the 1^st opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of ID Card issued by the 1^st opposite party. Ext.P3(series) are the fee receipts. Ext.P4(series) are mark lists of the complainant issued by the 3^rd opposite party. Ext.P5 is the ID card issued by the 4^th opposite party. Mathrubhumi daily copy dated 10.5.2015 is Ext.P6. Copy of public notice issued by UGC dated 11.3.2015 is Ext.P7. Circular dated 16.6.2015 is Ext.P8. Letter issued by the UGC dated 29.7.2009 is Ext.P9. RTI reply given by the UGC dated 14.1.2016 is Ext.P10(series). Specimen copy of record issued by 3^rd opposite party to the complainant is Ext.P11. Ext.P12 is the specimen copy of record issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant. Copy of notice issued by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties dated 15.6.2016 is Ext.P13. Copy of agreement executed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in favour of students parents association is Ext.P14. Copy of affidavit issued by the Registrar of 3^rd opposite party is Ext.P15. Copy of notification dated 21.9.2015 issued by the 3^rd opposite party is Ext.P16. Copy of petition filed before the SHO, Thodupuzha is Ext.P17. Prospectus and Adult Learning Guide of 1^st opposite party is Ext.P18.

From the defence side, 5 documents were produced and marked. Ext.R1 is the copy of Circular issued by the 3^rd opposite party dated 5.1.2012. Ext.R2 is the copy of list of state universities as on 15.1.2016 issued by the UGC. Ext.R3 is the copy of institutions under the

(cont.....13)

- 13 -

collaboration centre. Ext.R4 is copy of notification of 3^rd opposite party dated 8.8.2014. Ext.R5 is the copy of Public notices issued by the 3^rd opposite party dated 19.1.2016. No oral evidence adduced from the side of opposite parties. 5^th opposite party called absent.

Heard both sides.

Point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

The POINT :- We have heard the counsels for both sides and have perused the records and the evidence adduced before the Forum. From the available evidences and from the pleadings and counter affidavit, we can see that the petitioners in all cases are admitted in the 3 year duration DCS course in the year 2013 by the 1^st opposite party and they successfully completed 2 years. As per Ext.P3, we can see that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.51,200/- to the 1^st opposite party institution towards fee in various heads from 3.7.2013 to 9.2.2015. All other complainants in connected cases also paid same fees in this period. 1^st and 4^th opposite parties, the collaborate institutions issued Exts.P2 and P7 Identity cards to the complainant. The complainant in all these cases are joined in the above diploma course on the firm belief that the course is recognised by the UGC as stated in the Ext.P1 prospectus issued by the 1^st opposite party college along with the course application. It is also noted that during the 2^nd year examination, the complainant and other complainants happened to know that the course where they are admitted, run by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties through the 3^rd opposite party has not been recognised by the UGC. Complainant produced Ext.P8 public notice issued by the UGC, dated 16.6.2015. On perusal of this exhibit, it is specifically stated that, “Karnataka State Open University, Mysore, herein 3^rd opposite party, in collaboration with private institutions/entities/coaching centres spread all over the country and even abroad, has been offering programmes through distance learning mode by blatantly flouting the norms, guidelines and directives of University Grants Commission and erstwhile Distant Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi. Taking cognizance of this fact, the programmes offered by KSOU, Mysore

(cont.....14)

- 14 -

has not been recognised by UGC beyond 2012-13. This has been done after issue of a Show Cause Notice to them on 10.6.2011 and after considering their response including personal hearing of the officials of the University.” From this exhibit, it is obvious that at the time of getting admission in the 1^st opposite party college by the complainant and other complainants, there was no recognition and this fact is concealed by the 3^rd opposite party and they further issued directions to the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties to continue their process as a distant study centre and collaborate centre. Here it is pertinent to note that as far as the students are concerned, they have participated in the course conducted by the 3^rd opposite party through 1^st and 4^th opposite parties in the state of Kerala and these courses are conducted as permitted by the University. As far as the educational institution are concerned, they were permitted to maintain study centres for imparting education in different courses. If the permission is withdrawn, they have no legal right to demand that the permission should be continued, when there is a legal restriction,from the part of the UGC to permit study centres to be operated. University has no other option other than to withdraw permission granted for operating study centres.

At this juncture, it is very pertinent to peruse the contention of the reply version submitted by 1^st and 2^nd opposite party, the institution. In their reply version,they categorically stated that 3^rd opposite party University constituted under the Karnataka State Open University Act 1992. The 3^rd opposite party is directly giving registration to each student including the complainantst of these cases through 4^th opposite party and 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties are receiving a fixed fee for registering the students and also for approval of their study centres.

Further contended that the decision taken by the UGC and 3^rd opposite party is beyond the control of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. It is also taken into consideration that against the decision of UGC, the various associations of study centres and collaborate institutions preferred writ petition in various High Court in India and WPC Nos.19466/15, 19782/15, 14654/2016 were pending before our Hon'ble High Court. From the above contentions of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, it is an admitted fact that they along with some other institutions and students parents

(cont.....15)

- 15 -

association filed writ petition before our own High Court also and obtained some interim as well as final orders. From the defence side produced copy of the order of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in WPC No.19782/15. In this Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court passed order by observing that, para 8, “understandably, the University, while cancelling the right of the study centres, had given a letter to the study centres to provide a list of candidates who had already been admitted to various courses and it was the responsibility of the study centres to provide such list of candidates. In respect of the students who had already been admitted prior to the withdrawal of permission in terms of university order dated 8.8.2014, necessarily the University will have to take some action to redress their grievance.” In the present case and connected cases, eventhough 3^rd opposite party University filed detailed reply version and the Registrar of 3^rd opposite party filed affidavit, has not raised such contention, at the same time they blankly denied the averements in the complaint in total. In such a situation, it is very clear that 3^rd opposite party has not taken any steps to redress the grievances of these complainants and has not cared about their future. All these students are obtained admission in the year 2013 for the 3 year diploma course and completed 2 years successfully. Also noted that 3^rd opposite party failed to communicate the directions and circulars of the UGC to their distant study centres and collaborate centres in time. Hence the act of the 3^rd opposite party in providing service to their distant educational centres through the collaborate centres by hiding the circulars and directions of the UGC, is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In this case, no alternative arrangement is provided to the students by the 3^rd opposite party to complete their studies and thereby the students lost their several academic years in their life and their future also be at stake. As the Hon'ble High Court observed in the above WPC, the loss of time of the complainants cannot be compensated in terms of money. The Forum is of a considered view that the 3^rd opposite party should compensate them at least to a certain extend.

On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum directs the 3^rd opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs each to each complainant of these cases as compensation within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till its realisation.

(cont.....16)

- 16 -

At the same time, 1^st opposite party should be vigilant before giving admission to the students about the courses and its recognition and also the proceedings initiated by the UGC and the circulars issued by the UGC regarding this matter. Contention of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties that they are totally ignorant of the Ext.P7 public notice issued by the UGC and other related circulars is unsustainable and 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are bound to repay the fees that they received from the students as agreed by them in Ext.P14 agreement dated 3.12.2015, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

Benefit of this order should be available to the complainants who are not the petitioners of any of the WPC pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala or decided by the Hon'ble High Court.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of March, 2018

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

(cont.....17)

- 17 -

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Vishak C.R.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - prospectus issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ext.P2 - copy of ID Card issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ext.P3(series) - copy of fee receipts.

Ext.P4(series) - copy of mark lists of the complainant issued by 3^rd opposite party. Ext.P5 - the ID card issued by the 4^th opposite party.

Ext.P6 - Mathrubhumi daily copy dated 10.5.2015.

Ext.P7 - Copy of public notice issued by UGC dated 11.3.2015.

Ext.P8 - Circular dated 16.6.2015

Ext.P9 - Letter issued by the UGC dated 29.7.2009.

Ext.P10(series) - RTI reply given by the UGC dated 14.1.2016. is

Ext.P11 -Specimen copy of record issued by 3^rd opposite party to the complainant. Ext.P12 - specimen copy of record issued by the 1^st opposite party

to the complainant.

Ext.P13 - Copy of notice issued by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties dated 15.6.2016.

Ext.P14 - Copy of agreement executed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties

in favour of students parents association

Ext.P15 - Copy of affidavit issued by the Registrar of 3^rd opposite party.

Ext.P16 - copy of notification dated 21.9.2015 issued by the 3^rd opposite party. Ext.P17 - Copy of petition filed before the SHO, Thodupuzha.

Ext.P18 - Prospectus and Adult Learning Guide of 1^st opposite party.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - copy of Circular issued by the 3^rd opposite party dated 5.1.2012.

Ext.R2 - copy of list of state universities as on 15.1.2016 issued by the UGC.

Ext.R3 - copy of institutions under the collaboration centre.

Ext.R4 - copy of notification of 3^rd opposite party dated 8.8.2014.

Ext.R5 - copy of Public notices issued by the 3^rd opposite party dated 19.1.2016.

Forwarded by Order,

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT