IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 91/10 DATED 26.10.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Rajiv Shankar Agarwal,<br /> Montessori and Nursery Teachers Training Academy, A Unit of Indian Institute of Career Development, No.731, 1st Main, C Block, AECS Layout, <br /> Bangalore-560037.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.P.D.R., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Mrs. Roppa Chengappa, <br /> St.Mary’s Maria Montessori, Kinderagarten and Nursery Teachers Training School, No.3042, F Block, Kanakadasa Nagar, Dattagalli, 3rd Stage, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (EXPARTE)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 18.03.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : -<br /> Date of order : 26.04.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under section 12 of the C.P.Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party, seeking direction to refund Rs.25,000/- with interest and also, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards financial loss and hardship as well as inconvenience caused, together with cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, the complainant is an Engineering graduate in Computer Science. He was employed with Hewlett Packared. Coming to know that the opposite party is interested in opening teachers training school in Bangalore and the complainant was interested in staring the training school at Bangalore, visited the opposite party. On the sign board, displayed at opposite party it was written as affiliated to American Montessori Society (AMS). When complainant enquired, Smt.Roopa Chengappa introduced herself as course co-ordinator. On enquiry, she informed the complainant, opposite party is affiliated to American Montessori Society has displayed in the sign board. She also gave the complainant photograph of the school and certificate of American Montessori Society and so also, issued a prospectus. When complainant asked the opposite party to issue authorization letter given by the American Montessori Society for having affiliated, opposite party informed that it is in the Chennai office and will be issued once the complainant entered into MOU. The complainant on the hopes, all believed. He resigned the job and the entered into MOU with the opposite party and paid Rs.25,000/- to Roopa Chengappa by cheque drawn on City Bank bearing No.246253 dated 11.05.2009. The complainant believed the opposite party all true that it is affiliated with American Montessori Society, admitted many students to the academy for training collecting Rs.10,000/- each. The students and parents demanded affiliation certificate to confirm their future. The complainant did not receive any such certificate from the opposite party. He demanded to issue certificate enabling him to furnish the same to the parents and the students and also to display the same in the premises. The opposite party started giving evasive answers and kept on postponing. Finally opposite party made a letter to Chennai office to issue affiliation certificate. In reply, Chennai office informed that the opposite party is associated and not affiliated, as per letter dated 14.08.2009. The opposite party placing on the board as affiliated to American Montessori Society has mislead the complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service. Opposite party caused heavy financial loss and reputation has been affected. The complainant had to issue transfer certificates to the students as they did not want to continue there being no affiliation to the American Montessori Society. The complainant had taken loan and invested huge amount to set up infrastructure. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party refused to receive the notice that was sent by the Forum and holding that it is sufficient service, is set exparte. <br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that it is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- In the second paragraph of the complaint, it is alleged that, after coming to know that, the opposite party is giving franchise for opening teachers training institute, the complainant approached the opposite party and thereafter, entered into MOU on certain terms and conditions. Thus, considering the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant is franchise holder. As held by the Hon’ble National Commission franchise holder is not a consumer. Hence, the complainant being not a consumer, the complaint before this Forum under section 12 of the C.P.Act is not maintainable. <br /> <br /> 8. Also, it is relevant to note that, to maintain complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, the relation between the complainant and the opposite party shall be as of consumer and service provider. According to the complainant, the opposite party an institute was interested to open training school at Bangalore and accordingly, as per the MOU, the complainant opened teachers training school at Bangalore. Also, it is claimed by the complainant that, the complainant got admitted teachers for training purpose etc., Hence, as per the MOU on certain terms, the complainant opened training school at Bangalore. Hence, there is no question of providing any service by the opposite party to the complainant.<br /> 9. In view of the above facts, since the complaint itself is not maintainable, we feel it not at all necessary to go into the merits of the facts alleged by the complainant. Accordingly, our finding on the above point is in negative.<br /> <br /> 10. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to costs. <br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 26th April 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />