COMPLAINT FILED: 25.07.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 21st NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1634/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr. Vishal Kirankumar Desai,<br /> S/o. Mr. Kirankumar Desai,<br /> Aged 23 years,<br /> Permanent Residence at:<br /> Mora-Bhagda, <br /> Post Kosamba-Bhagda,<br /> Taluka & District Valsad,<br /> Gujarat.<br /> <br /> Advocate (Pradeep Singh)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY T. John Group of Institutions,<br /> Represented by its Chairman,<br /> Dr. Thomas P.J.<br /> Having its Office at : SG-4,<br /> Manipal Centre, <br /> 47 Dickenson Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 042.<br /> Karnataka.<br /> <br /> & also at<br /> College Campus : Gottigere Post,<br /> Bannerghatta Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 083.<br /> Karnataka.<br /> <br /> Advocate (G.S. Bhat)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.6,23,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant contacted the OP institution to have an admission in MCA. In his 12th standard he had secured average marks, as such he was doubtful whether he can be admitted for MCA course for the academic year 2007-08. OP promised to admit him for the said course and collected Rs.600/- and issued prospectus. As a reservation charges OP collected another Rs.20,000/-, allotted him the MCA course Roll Number 071834, thereafter collected Rs.31,000/- towards the tuition fees. Complainant was issued with a identity card, he obtained the bus pass for the whole year by paying another Rs.6,000/- He was regular in attending the classes. Complainant secured 66.09% as marks in aggregate in internal examination. He has paid the examination fees with regard to the University exam to be held for the said academic year to the tune of Rs.1,695/-. Though other students got the hall ticket from the Bangalore University on 08th January 2008, unfortunately complainant did not receive the said hall ticket for the first semester examination. On enquiry with the HOD of the OP institution he came to know that as he is not eligible for the MCA course because of the less number of marks which he obtained in 12th standard, University has not recognized his case, hence not sent the hall ticket. Immediately complainant contacted the OP, unfortunately OP is unable to get him the hall ticket. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Due to the fraud and cheating committed by OP in assuring him the admission for MCA in the recognized University he has lost his precious academic year. On insistence OP refunded only the basic fees paid by him. But the mental agony suffered by the complainant was not compensated. Due to the hostile attitude of the OP complainant is forced to face the financial loss. Under such circumstances he felt the deficiency in service. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it is the complainant who fraudulently misrepresented stating that he is eligible to be admitted for MCA course as he has acquired/required percentage of marks in 12th standard. To have an MCA admission one should study mathematics/statistics at graduation level. OP believed the representation of the complainant and reserved the seat for him, repeatedly OP was asking the complainant to produce the relevant marks cards of 12th standard for the needful action. Several times he was notified to comply, but it went in vain. OP has collected a tuition fees because complainant attended the classes and OP imparted the education. With regard to hostel expenses, bus, etc., complainant is bound to pay the same. When the question of sending the examination form for the University to issue hall ticket for the first semester aroused OP intimated the complainant to produce the necessary marks cards immediately, but he failed to do so. The University felt in absence of such document it is not possible to issue the hall ticket to the candidate to appear for first semester. There is no deficiency in service muchless unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. When complainant did not get the hall ticket OP promptly refunded whatever the fees he has paid. Without any protest complainant received the same. Thereafter with ulterior motive caused the legal notice, which was suitably replied and after the lapse of another 4-5 months this false and frivolous complaint is filed. The complaint is devoid of merits. OP is not liable to pay the compensation as prayed. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant opted to secure MCA course at OP institution. It is contended by the OP that complainant pleaded before them that he has secured the required marks in 12th standard. Believing the words of the complainant OP admitted him and reserved the seat for him then collected Rs.20,000/-. The fact that complainant collected prospectus by paying Rs.600/- is not at dispute. On the perusal of the prospectus it is specifically mentioned that a candidate should obtain 50% of marks in mathematics or statistics in his 12th standard examination. Though complainant is aware of the said fact, unfortunately knowingly full well that he did not have that much of average marks for the said subject in 12th standard, somehow knocked the doors of the OP to secure MCA degree. The approach of the complainant does not appears to be very much fair and honest.<br /> <br /> 7. The contention of the complainant that OP promised him to allot a seat in MCA course for academic year 2007-08, even though he has secured average marks appears to be baseless. No institution will take a risk, in all probability OP must have believed the verbal submission of the complainant that he had secured required number of marks in 12th standard and allotted him a seat, collected the tuition fees and other fees as contemplated provided roll number, issued him the bus pass, etc. When the question of sending the examination forms to the University to secure hall ticket for the first semester came, of course OP demanded the complainant to produce the original marks card of 12th standard. It appears complainant failed to heed to the said demand.<br /> <br /> 8. OP has issued a notice to the complainant on 10.09.2007 asking him to produce 12th standard marks card, migration certificate on 15.10.2007, also he was asked to produce the 12th standard marks card so also on 05.11.2007. The said notice copies are produced. Even he was asked to produce the said marks card on 07.01.2008. The contents of the said documents are not denied or disputed by the complainant. When that is so, in order to get him the hall ticket the 12th standard marks card is a must, because it speaks to the fact whether he has taken the mathematics or statistics as contemplated compulsory subject to get admission to MCA. As admitted by the complainant he did not secure that much of marks nor he studied the subject. When that is so, complainant cannot blame the OP for the failure to secure the hall ticket.<br /> <br /> 9. It is said he who seeks equity must do equity and must come with clean hands. But here in this case the approach of the complainant does not appears to be as very much fair and honest. When OP came to know that complainant did not get the hall ticket from the University it promptly refunded all the fees collected from the complainant in all to tune of Rs.59,395/- on 17.01.2008. Complainant received the said amount without any protest. With all that complainant caused the legal notice on 07.03.2008 and then filed this complaint after 6 months that is on 25.07.2008. All these facts speaks to the ulterior motive and intention of the complainant. <br /> <br /> 10. It is the complainant who has suppressed certain material facts which are well within his knowledge and made false representation before the OP to secure MCA admission. When the question of getting the hall ticket from the University for the annual examination aroused complainant failed to fulfill the minimum requirement of qualification, that is why he did not get the hall ticket, for that OP cannot be blamed. If the complainant has spent certain amount for his comfortable stay at Bangalore for a year he should thank himself for that. Viewed from any angle, the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />