BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Satish Kumar, aged 51years, s/o Bidhi Chand, r/o V.P.O. Dehra Tehsil Dehra, Distt. Kangra

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Swami Vivekananda University of Merchant Navy, Through its Director Professor, Sunil, S.C.O. No. 323, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.V.P. Chatrath,  Adv. for complainant.

OP exparte

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant took admission at the Institute of OP and was enrolled under the category Chief Engineer 2008 course. As per the advertisement given by the OP in the journal (Marex Bulletin) the said course was recognized by DGS Panama Maritime Authority Panama ISO 9001-2000. He deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the OP towards fees of the said course.  The duration of the training was from 5^th September, 2008 to 5^th October, 2008. That the complainant spent approximately Rs.1,00,000/- for his training which included his stay expenditure at Chandigarh.  However, when the training was completed, he was shocked when he came to know that the certificate issued by the OP for the said course was not recognized by Panama Maritime Authority. On that he contacted OP in the month of November and December 2009 but OP stated that they had not succeeded to get the certificate recognized from Panama Maritime Agency. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to OP. None appeared on behalf of OP.  Accordingly OP was proceeded ex-parte. 

3.             The Learned Counsel for the complainant led evidence in support of his contention.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 

5.             Annexure C-1 is the copy in which the OP had advertised the admission for competency courses recognized by DGS Panama Maritime Authority Panama ISO 9001-2000 to be run in their institute Swami Vivekananda University of Merchant Navy at Sector 40-D, Chandigarh. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- vide Annexure C-2, as fee and was enrolled under the category Chief Engineer 2008 course.  Annexure C-3 is the certificate of training issued to him by the OP after completing the said course. The contention of the complainant is that it was mentioned on the certificate that the said institute was recognized by Directorate General of Seafarers Panama, Panama Maritime Authority Republic of Panama, ISO 9001:2000 certified institute. In Annexure C-3 it is also mentioned that the certificate was issued under the authority of Directorate General of Seafarers, Panama Maritime Authority, Panama and that the University has authorized the OP institute as an approved institute to give training.  It is the grouse of the complainant that when he got the certificate on 6.10.2008, he was shocked to know that the certificate issued by OP was not recognized by the Panama Maritime Authority as claimed by the OP in advertisement Annexure C-1 and when he met the OP in this regard, they could not give any satisfactory reasons for that.

6.             In our opinion the OP has adopted unfair trade practice as the complainant has produced a magazine copy of Marex Bulletin for Merchant Navy dated 14.12.2009, wherein the Consulate General of Republic of Panama, has given a public notice that they are the only issuing authority for Panama licences and CDCs in India and the only approved institute for Panama in India is Rahaman College of Advanced Maritime Studies and Research (RCAMSAR), Mumbai. This clearly shows that the claim of the OP that its institute is approved by DGS Panama Maritime Authority Panama ISO 9001-2000 is factually wrong.

7.               In view of the facts and circumstances placed before us, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP is directed to refund fee of Rs.30,000/- along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental and physical harassment and for indulging in unfair trade practice.  The OP shall also pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant towards the costs of litigation.  The aforesaid total amount of (Rs.30,000+Rs.10,000+Rs.2200)=Rs.42,200/-  shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay penal interest @9% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 22.12.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. The complainant has not produced any document to prove that he ever spent Rs.1,00,000/- for his training including stay expenditure at Chandigarh, as alleged in para number 3 of the complaint, so we are not inclined to grant the same.