JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. N.H. Savalagi President:-<br /> <br /> Thirteen complainants have filed this complaint U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the four Respondents for deficiency in service. The brief facts of the complaint may be summed up as under:<br /> The complainants are Engineering Students studying in Final Year B.E. in Civil Engineering for the academic year 2007-08 in S.L.N. College of Engineering, Yermarus Camp, Raichur. This college is affiliated to Vishweshawarayya Technological University, Belgaum and approved by AICTE, New Delhi. The Respondent No-1 is the President, of TALGEA’S Training & Placement Campaign in TALGEA’S School, J.C. Industrial Layout, Yelechanahalli, Kanakpur Road, Bangalore. Respondent No-2 is the Director of Training & Placement Campaign in the said TALGEA’s School,. Respondent No-3 is the Principal of Training & Placement Campaign in TELGEA’s School Institution. Respondent NO-4 is the Principal S.L.N. Engineering College Yermars Camp, Raichur. The Respondent No- 1 to 3 are running the training and placement campaigning school by name & style as TALGEA’s finishing school at Bangalore and engaged in imparting training for B.E. Students Graduates in various courses and also guide in placement of such Graduate in various recognized companies. The Respondents 1 to 3 did approach the Principal HKE’s Societies, S.L.N. College of Engineering, Yermars Camp, Raichur (Respondent No-4) and assured to impart the Training to the complainants who are studying in Civil Engineering Final Year B.E. in the said college and also assured to the complainants that they will be placed and appointed in a reputed company, and on such assurance the complainants agreed to join the Respondents Institutions through their S.L. N. College of Engineering Raichur. The Respondents 1 to 3 demanded and charged an amount of Rs. 9,000/- from each complainant for imparting Training and placement. Out of (13) complainants six of them have paid the required fees of Rs. 9,000/- each (Rs. 3,000/- by DD and Rs. 6,000/- paid in cash) and six of the remaining have paid Rs. 3,000/- each in part through DD and the remaining one of the complainants has paid Rs. 9,000/- in cash to the Respondents. A separate list is enclosed showing which of the complainant has paid fees in cash and through DD to the Respondents.<br /> After the receipt of fees from the complainants the Respondents had asked the complainants to join their Institution for training on 17-01-08 and accordingly the complainants have joined the institution on 17-01-08 at Bangalore. The Respondents have illegally relived the complainants on 20-01-08 without imparting any training to them. The reason assigned by the Respondents for reliving them is that the Institution of the Respondents had no facility for imparting training for Civil Engineering Student. Respondents knowing fully well that they had no such facility for imparting training to Civil Engineering Students, even then they have illegally collected the fees from the complainants as such the Respondents have deliberately, intentionally and maliciously deceived complainants, hence their act amounts to cheating willfully, negligence and deficiency in service to the complainants.<br /> After illegally reliving the complainants without imparting any training & placement, the complainants did approach the Respondents personally many times and also through one Mr. Bhat, Senior Faculty of Civil Engineering Department and through the principal of S.L.N. College of Engineering, Raichur (Respondent No-4) through a letter, but the Respondents failed to neither impart the training nor repay the amount collected towards fees thus the Respondents have illegally with-held the amount collected towards fees and charges from the complainants without any cause or reason, as such the complainants are put to great loss, mental torture and also incurred expenses for going over to Bangalore and return. Besides they have also lost their precious time in their life which has affected their carrier. Therefore the act of Respondents amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainants requested the Respondents 1 to 3 to refund the fees and charges collected from them through legal notice dt. 20-05-08 but they have replied by denying for refund of the same. Hence for all these reasons the complainants have sought for refund of the amount of fees collected from each of the complainants as shown in the enclosed list, with interest from the date of payment till realization and has sought for Rs. 10,000/- to each of the complainant towards damages and mental agony and physical sufferings and Rs. 2,000/- towards expenses incurred.<br /> 2. Along with the complaint, I.A. No-1 was filed U/s. 12(c) of C.P. Act to permit the complainant No-1 to represent & defend the complaint on behalf of complainants 2 to 13 for the reasons stated in the enclosed affidavit. Accordingly I.A. No-1 was allowed U/s. 12 (c) of C.P. Act. On the same day I.A. No-2 was filed for impleading the Principal of S.L.N. Engineering College Yermarus Camp, Raichur as Respondent NO-4 which was also allowed accordingly. <br /> In pursuance of service of notice of the complaint, Respondent NO-4 appeared through Sri. K.Mahadevappa Advocate. One Sri. Shashidhar Advocate has sent vakalat through post for Respondent No-1. Respondent NO- 2 & 3 remained absent when called out so they have been placed Ex-parte. Respondent NO-4 has filed his written version and Respondent No-1 has sent his written version by post on 07-11-08. <br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The written version of Respondent NO-1 reads as under:<br /> It is admitted that the complainants are the students studying in Final Year Civil Engineering at S.L.N. College of Engineering, Yermarus Camp, Raichur which is affiliated to Vishweshwarayya Technological University, Belgam and approved by the AICTE, New Delhi. It is also true that Respondents 1 to 3 are running the Training and Placement Campaign School, under the name and style as TALGEA’S finishing school at Bangalore which imparts training in subjects pertaining to Engineering Faculty for B.E. Graduates in various courses. But the allegations regarding providing of placement facilities after completion of the training are all imaginary and concoted. Respondent No-1 never guide in placement of such graduates in various recognized companies as alleged.<br /> The averments made at para-4 of the complaint that Respondent NO-1 did personally approach the principal, HKE’s Societies of S.L.N. College of Engineering, Yermarus Camp, Raichur and has made assurance to impart the training or placement in a reputed company to the complainants and on such assurance the complainants have joined the Institution through the S.L.N. College of Engineering etc., and that Respondents demanded and charged required fees etc., are all false and baseless and the complainants are put to strict proof of the same. The averments made at Para-5 of the complaint regarding the charges of fees are admitted by Respondent No-1. However he has never collected the fees of Rs. 9,000/- per student to impart training and placement. Similarly Respondent NO-1 did not aware of the fact that out of (13) students six, of them have paid Rs. 9,000/- and six of remaining have paid Rs. 3,000/- by DD and one person has paid Rs. 9,000/- in cash. It is submitted that all the complainants have voluntarily left the Training Institute after signing discharge letter at their own for the reasons best known to them only before its completion. Hence the question of returning the fees does not arise at all.<br /> The Respondents have not given any assurance either orally or in writing regarding placements after completion of the training programme. After pursuing the training for some time, the complainants without any intimation have left the course on their own volition without returning the study materials provided to them and have dis-continued the training in an un-ceremonious manner. Hence Respondent NO-1 snubs the allegation of abrupt relive of the complainants on 20-01-08 as utterly false and frivolous. Respondent No-1 at no point of time has removed the complainants since the Institutive has provided the best facilities for imparting training for Civil Engineering students in the training campus. Respondent No-1 has never collected any illegal fees in-respect of training from any body. This Respondent NO-1 does not know/aware of the fact whether or not the complainants have approached Mr. Bhat, Senior Faculty of Civil Engineering at S.L.N. College of Engineering, Raichur regarding repayment of fees. But on the instigations and inducement of Mr. Bhat, all the complainants have left the course voluntarily on their own. The complainants are put to strict to proof of the same. The complainants have caused a lot of inconvenience and hardship to the Respondents in terms of arranging faculty facilities and transportation & accommodation etc., thereafter by abruptly withdrawing from the said training programme during the ongoing period and forcefully taking themselves away with the study materials. So the question of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents does not arise at all. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents No-1 has sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.<br /> <br /> 4. The Respondent No-4, the Principal of SLN College of Engineering Yermarus Camp, Raichur has filed written version contending that this Respondent No-4 has nothing to do in the training for placement of the complainants. This Respondent has been impleaded only with a view to have jurisdiction before this Forum. Respondent No- 1 to 3 having a Training Placement campaign in TALGEA’S School which will benefit in their job and placement and on this basis the complainants offered to go for training for placement. The training period as per schedule was from 18-01-08 to 19-02-08. The complainants joined for the training and reported at TALGEA’S School as 17-01-08 the prescribed fee was not paid to this Respondent NO-4 but it is only the TALGEA’S school authorities who has received the prescribed fees amount. As per the Respondent No-4’s knowledge only (11) complainants have remitted Rs. 3,000/- each through bank DD to the TALGEA’S school authority and remaining amount of Rs. 6,000/- each was not paid by complainants 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 & 12. This amount was received by TALGEA’S school authority and not by this Respondent No-4. The Respondent No- 4 has no knowledge whether the TALGEA’S institution is a registered body and what are its aims and objects. The complainants joined the training on 17-01-08 and they are relived on 20-01-08. This is evident from the reliving letter issued by Sri. K. L. Mohan Rao, President of Cida Associate Director TALGEA’S Bangalore. This letter was handed over to Sri. Bhat, Senior Faculty Civil Engineering Department of SLN College Yermarus, Camp Raichur who had visited TALGEA’S school on 20-01-08. According to the information, the complainants could not complete their training programme as it was not suitable and they were subjected to harassment and agony. <br /> <br /> Subsequent to the dis-continuation of the training course, the complainants are relived on 20-01-08. Complainants and Sri. Bhat, Senior Faculty Civil Engineering Department of Respondent No-4 College, contacted TALGEA’S for refund of the fees paid towards the training programme. There was no response by the TALGEA. The registered legal notice dt. 20-05-08 was given through one Sri. Amaregouda, Advocate for refund of the amount but there was no proper reply by the TALGEA’S Advocate Sri. Shashidhar. This Respondent NO-4 has no concern, nor there is any deficiency in service on his part and no claim is made against this Respondent NO-4. Therefore the complainant is liable to be dismissed against this Respondent No-4. It is a case of mis-joinder of impleading this Respondent No-4 subsequently with a view to have jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence for all these reasons Respondent NO-4 has sought for dismissal of the complaint against this Respondent NO-4 with cost.<br /> 5. During the course of enquiry the complainant No-1 has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief for self and on behalf of other complainants. The Respondent No-1 even though has sent his written version by post, but has not filed his affidavit-evidence and there was no representation on behalf of Respondent NO-1 during the course of enquiry. Respondent No-4 has filed his affidavit-evidence by way of examination in chief as RW-1. On behalf of complainants (7) documents have been got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7. Respondent No- 1 & 4 have not adduced any documentary evidence Respondent No- 2 & 3 are place Ex-parte.<br /> 6. Heard the arguments of counsel for the complainant and Respondent No-4. In-spite of granting sufficient time the Respondent NO-1 and his counsel remained absent so it was taken as no argument on behalf of Respondent No-1. Respondent No- 2 & 3 are Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 7. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:<br /> 1. Whether the complainants prove deficiency of service by the Respondent No- 1 to 3 in not refunding their respective fees amount, as alleged.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief sought for.?<br /> <br /> 8. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1 :-<br /> <br /> 9. There is no dispute that during the academic year 2007-08 all the (13) complainants were studying in Final Year in Civil Engineering at SLN College of Engineering, Yermarus Camp, Raichur and this college is affiliated to Vishweshwarayya Technological University, Belgaum and approved by the AICTE New Delhi. The Respondent No- 1 has not disputed that they (Respondent No-1 to 3) are running the training and placement Campaigning School under the name and style as TALGEA’S finishing school at Bangalore for imparting training for BE graduates in various courses.<br /> 10. It is the case of the complainants that the Respondent NO- 1 to 3 did approach Respondent NO-4 Principal HKE Society SLN College of Engineering of Yermarus Camp Raichur and assured to impart training to the complainants for studying in Final Year Civil Engineering and also assured that they will be placed & appointed in a reputed company and on such assurance the complainants agreed to join the Respondents Institutions through Respondent NO-4 college, for training and that Respondent No-1 to 3 demanded & charged an amount of Rs. 9,000/- for each complainants towards fees for imparting training and placement and that out of (13) complainants, six of them have paid the required fees of Rs. 9,000/- each (by way of DD for Rs. 3,000/- each and Rs. 6,000/- is paid in cash) and six out of the remaining students/complainants have paid Rs. 3,000/- each in part through DD and the remaining one has paid Rs. 9,000/- in cash to the Respondents. To substantiate the same the complainants have produced reply notice at Ex.P-5 issued by Respondent NO-1 through his counsel Sri. Shashidhar.M. dt. 12-07-08 addressed to Sri. G.Amaregouda, the counsel for the complainants and in this reply notice at Para-4 Respondent NO-1 has admitted charging of fees for an amount of Rs. 9,000/- per student to impart training and placement of the complainants. Besides this, the complainants have produced Ex.P-2 the Xerox copy of letter dt. 10-01-08 issued by Respondent No-1 regarding training and placement camp at TALGEA’S finishing school. In this letter which is addressed to the complainants, he has acknowledged the receipt of applications and DD sent by the students. This letter also shows that the training placement campaign will be from 18-01-08 to 09-02-08 for (21) days. This letter is in the shape of instruction to the complainants/students for attending the training by stating that they have to report by 4-00 PM sharp on 17-01-08 at Respondent Institution at Bangalore. Lodging & Boarding and Dormitory facility inclusive of Breakfast, Tea, Dinner is provided. The fees includes Boarding & Lodging. The training programme will start on 18-01-08 onwards for (21) days at 8-30 AM to 6-30 PM each class will assess and cumulative marks will be given etc., They have also filed four Xerox copies of bank DDs at Ex.P-1(1) to Ex.P-1(4). There apart the complainants have also produced Ex.P-7 Xerox copy of letter dt. 19-03-08 issued by Respondent No-4, the Principal of SLN College of Engineering, Yermarus Camp Raichur addressed to Respondents TALGEA’S Institution. In this letter it is specifically shown in detail that out of (13) students/complainants the complainant No-1 to 11 (as per cause title) have paid Rs. 3,000/- through DDs with specific numbers. It further shows that the complainants NO- 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, & 11 have also paid the Rs. 6,000/- in cash and complainant NO-13 Shivakumar has paid Rs. 9,000/- in cash and complainant NO-12 Annapurna has not paid any fees. A perusal of this letter supports the averments made in Para-5 of the complaint so it shows that out of (13) complainants, complainants No- 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, & 13 have paid full fees of Rs. 9,000/- and the complainant Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, & 10 have paid only Rs. 3,000/- and that complainant No-12 Annapurna has not paid any fees.<br /> <br /> 11. As seen above Sri. M. Shashidhar Advocate has sent vakalat for Respondent NO-1 through post on 12-09-08 and the Respondent NO-1 has sent his written version dt. 24-10-08 through post on 07-11-08, but except the written version Respondent NO-1 has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence and neither the Respondent No-1 nor his counsel appeared on any single day during the course of enquiry of this case to defend his case as per written version fled by him. The Respondent No-2 who is the Director of TALGEA’S School and Respondent No-3 who is the Principal of TALGEA’S School have set Ex-parte by remaining absent. Respondent No-4 who is the Principal of SLN Engineering College of Yermarus Camp, in his written version at Para-3 and in his affidavit-evidence, has stated that Respondent No- 1 to 3 having a training and placement campaign in TALGEA’S school which will benefit to the student in their job and placement and on this basis the complainants to go for training for placement. The training period as per schedule was from 18-01-08 to 09-02-08 and the complainants on 17-01-08 joined for training. It is also stated that only (11) complainants have remitted Rs. 3,000/- each through bank DD to the Respondents TALGEA’S school authority and the remaining amount of Rs. 6,000/- each was not paid by complainant NO-4, 5, 7, 8, 10, & 12. This averment substantiates the contents of his letter at Ex.P-7 to the TALGEA’S School Authority regarding the payments of fees made by respective complainants. The written version of this Respondent No-4 in a nut shell supports the contention of the complainants regarding payment of fees made by respective complainants to the Respondent NO- 1 to 3 Institution and complainant had reported to the training programme at Bangalore on 17-01-08 for the training scheduled from 18-01-08 to 09-02-08.<br /> <br /> 12. Nextly it is contended by the complainants that the complainants joined institution for training on 17-01-08 and Respondents 1 to 3 have illegally relived them on 20-01-08 without imparting any training to them. The reason assigned by them for reliving was that their institution had no facility for imparting training for Civil Engineering students. The three Respondents knowing fully well that they had no such facility for imparting training to Civil Engineering students even then they have illegally collected the fees from the complainants for imparting training and placements and their acts amounts to negligence and deficiency in service and also cheating willfully. <br /> <br /> The complainants have produced Ex.P-3 the reliving letter dt. 20-01-08 issued by the Respondent NO-1 addressed to Principal SLN College of Engineering Raichur (Respondent No-4). In this letter it is stated that the following students ( by stating the names of 13 complainants) have (been) relived from the course on 20-01-08 they are accompanied by Mr. Bhat, a Senior Faulty of Civil Engineering Department of your college. This reliving letter at Ex.P-3 issued by Respondent No-1 shows that (13) complainants have joined the training programme TALGEA’S school at Bangalore and have been relived on 20-01-08. Further, as per Ex.P-2 the training period is from 18-01-08 to 09-02-08 for (21) days but the reliving letter at Ex.P-3 is contrary to Ex.P-2 because as per Ex.P-3 the Respondent No-1 has relived the (13) complainants from the training course on 20-01-08 itself. This letter does not show the reason why the complainants have been relived by Respondent No-1 from the training programme. In the absence of the same, the contention of the Respondent No-1 in Para-7 of the written version that after perusing the training for some time, the complainants without any intimation left the course at their own volition without returning the study material as provided by them and they have dis-continued the training in an unceremonious manner etc holds no water. If the complainants without any intimation left the course of training on their own volition and that too without returning study materials proved to them, then there was no reason why the Respondent NO-1 has issued reliving letter dt. 20-01-08 at Ex.P-3 addressed to Respondent No.4 stating that the (13) named students have been relived from their course on 20-01-08 and they are accompanied by Mr. Bhat a Senior Faculty of Civil Engineering Department of Respondent No-4 College. So the contention of the Respondent NO-1 that the complainants/students after perusing the training for some time they left the course at their own volition without any intimation and without returning the study materials etc., does not stand to reason. On the contrary it strengthens the contention of the complainants in Para-6 that they have been relived by the Respondents since the Respondent Institution had no facility for imparting training for Civil Engineering Student. Hence the act of the Respondents in reliving the complainants/students is contrary to the letter of Respondent NO-1 at Ex.P-2 stating that the training programme will be for (21) days from 18-01-08 to 09-02-08 as detailed theirin. When the Respondents have relived the complainants from the training programme and for this programme they have collected fees from the complainants, then it was incumbent on the part of the Respondents to refund the fees paid by the complainants. <br /> The complainants have also produced a letter dt. 19-03-08 at Ex.P-6 issued by Respondent No-4 addressed to the Respondent TALGEA’S Institution for refund of the fees. Ex.P-7 is another letter showing details regarding payment of fees made by respective complainants as discussed above. It appears that since the Respondents having failed to comply to the letter of Respondent NO-4 for refund of the fees, the complainants got issued legal notice through their counsel as per Ex.P-4 for which the Respondent No.1 has replied vide Ex.P-5 denying for refund of fees. We have already discussed this reply letter of Respondent NO-1 at Ex.P-5. <br /> As discussed supra when the (12) complainants out of (13) have paid the required fees as detailed in the letter at Ex.P-7 and when the complainants have been relived from the training course on 20-01-08 as per Reliving letter at Ex.P-3 as against the training programme from 18-01-08 to 09-02-08 without assigning reasons by the Respondents then it was incumbunt on the Respondents to refund the fees collected from the (12) complainants (complainant NO- 1 to 11 & 13) as detailed in the letter at Ex.P-7. Hence the non-refund of the fees to the complainants in-spite of the request letter Ex.P-7 and denial for refund of the same through reply letter of Respondent NO-1 at Ex.P-5 it amounts to deficiency in service by the Respondents 1 to 3. Hence we hold that the complainants have proved deficiency of service by the Respondents 1 to 3 as alleged. So Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 13. The complainants have sought for refund of the amount collected from each of the complainants (as shown in the list enclosed to the complaint) with interest from the date of payment made till realization and Rs. 10,000/- each towards damages for mental agony and physical sufferings of the complainants and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation.<br /> <br /> As discussed in Point NO-1, the list enclosed to the complaint which has been marked at Ex.P-7, shows that complainant NO-1, Sharanabsasva Boreddy, complainant NO-2 Ratna.S., complainant No-3 Swetha Patil, complainant NO-6 Usha.A., complainant No-9 Azhar Ashfaq, & complainant NO-11 Syed Sharfuddin have paid full fees of Rs. 9,000/- ( Rs. 3,000/- by DD & Rs. 6,000/- in cash) the complainant No-13 Shivakumar has paid Rs. 9,000/- in cash. It further shows that complainants No- 4 Yogitha, complainant NO-5 Chaitanyapriya, complainant NO-7 Zunaid Abbas, complainant NO-8 Md. Imran, and complainant NO-10 Chandrashekhar.S. have paid only Rs. 3,000/- by DD and complainant No-12 Annapurna has not paid any fees. So in-view of our finding on Point NO-1, holding deficiency of service by the Respondents 1 to 3, the complainants 1 to 11 & 13 are entitled for refund of the fees paid by them as per Ex.P-7.<br /> <br /> So far as the claim of interest and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and physical sufferings to each of the complainant with cost of Rs. 2,000/- each is concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in Point NO-1, we feel it just and proper to award Rs. 5,000/- each to the complainants 1 to 11 & 13 including cot of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> The Respondents NO- 1 to 3 shall refund the fees to the complainants 1 to 11 & 13 respectively (as per observations made in Point NO-2, based on Ex.P-7) along with a global compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the complainants 1 to 11 & 13 including cost of litigation.<br /> <br /> The claim of the complainant No-12 Annapurna is dismissed. The complaint against Respondent No-4 is also dismissed. <br /> <br /> The Respondents 1 to 3 shall comply this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-12-08)<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur<br /> <br />