COMPLAINT FILED ON: 25.01.2011

DISPOSED ON: 25.07.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

25^th JULY 2011

       PRESENT:- SRI.B.S.REDDY                      PRESIDENT           

                         SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA     MEMBER

                         SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                MEMBER

COMPLAINT No.1146/2010

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA,  MEMBER

This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant, seeking direction to the Opposite Party No.1 (herein after called as O.Ps) to refund Rs.4155/- paid towards distance education course along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost on the allegations of deficiency in service.

2.      The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows.

The O.P.1 is a center of Distance Education offering various professional Courses to the prospective students across India. O.P.2 is the Director of Bangalore School of Management who with colourful presentation induced the complainant to enroll for a professional course with O.P.1.  Based upon the representation of O.P.2 complainant got enrolled to the Distance education in Bachelor of Business administration with O.P.1.  Complainant got admitted  to O.P.1,  Bharathidasa University on 6-10-2009 and was assigned admission card 8040, application No:92764.  Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4155/- to O.P.1.  Vide D.D. No. 619208, dt:24-8-2009.  Complainant was allotted Bangalore  center for contact classes. Complainant was allotted Student identity card from O.P.1.  Further it was informed that the study materials to be dispatched to the study centre within one month from the date of admission.  Even after one month complainant did not receive any sort of study materials from the O.Ps.  Complainant made several requests to O.P.1 requesting to send the Study materials so as to upgrade himself about the Syllabi and also to start his preparation for the examinations.  OPs did not bother to respond to the complainant, just made false assurances that Study materials will be sent shortly.  After waiting for some time. Complainant complained about the said facts to OP 2.  Even O.P.2 did not bothered to the request made by the complainant.  The examination for the Ist year Business Administration was scheduled in the month of May 2010. The complaint was surprise to note that even at the end of Dec. 2009, he has not received the study materials. Immediately complainant contacted O.P.1 and informed that he would come personally to collect study materials but O.P.1 replied that it has already dispatched the study materials and same would be reaching by day or two.  Complainant waited for more than a week he did not receive any study materials. Then he got issued the legal notice on 30-12-2009 to O.Ps. through his counsel requesting O.Ps to refund the admission fee of Rs.4155/- paid towards the BBA course along with compensation.  After receipt of the said legal notice OP sent a letter dt:5-1-2010 asking the complainant to send a requisition towards the refund of tuition fee along with original admission card and identity card;  So as to enable the office to make payment. On 21-1-2010 along with originals and identity card.  Complainant sent a requisition to O.Ps. requesting them make a payment immediately. When complainant was waiting for refund of the tuition fee surprisingly on 10-3-2010 complainant received a letter from O.P.1 along with  examination application form and time table for the examination. OP 1 had refused to refund the fees paid on the ground of Syndicate Resolution dt:24-9-1996.  Inspite of repeated requests when OPs failed to refund the amount complainant felt deficiency in service against OPs. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs.

3.      On appearance O.P.1 filed the version admitting that complainant was admitted to Bangalore Center for Bachelor of Business Administration for the academic year 2009-2010.  Bangalore School of management was provisionally approved as an academic partner institution for running Bharthidasan University with a condition that the university team will visit the center at any time to check proper functioning of the centre.  Further ordered that if any deficiency found, the provisional approval given to the center will be withdrawn and the students admitted will be transferred to an approved nearby institution. The copy of the order is produced.  It is further contended by OP 1 that initially  the complainant and two more candidates alone joined at Bangalore school of management centre for BBA course.  As per practice contact school need not be conducted if the student strength is less than 10.  Hence all the 3 candidates admitted at Bangalore school of management are directed to continue their study at Udaya centre.  It is also informed that study materials are distributed through concerned study center.  Complainant also known and admitted this fact.  The standing committee at its meeting held on 12-12-2009 ratified to revise the syllabi for BBA course through distance mode with effect from academic year 2009-2010 to enrich the potential of value based education.  The Syndicate of Bharathidasan University at its meeting held on 18-2-2010 also approved the decision of SCAA.  The copy of the minutes is produced.  Further it is contended that resource persons were identified for preparation of materials in accordance with the syllabi approved by the syndicate.  This is actual reason for bitter delay  to dispatch the study materials for BBA course only. All these facts were informed  to the complainant  when he came to university.  As per the opinion of the academicians & the principles of natural justice there should be 60 days time between dispatch of study materials &  date of commencement of examination.  In this case study materials for newly framed syllabi has been prepared and  sent to the co-coordinator Udaya Education Society, 18^th Street,  18^th Magadi, Vijayanagar, Bangalore on 3-2-2010. Whereas examination commences from 29-4-2010. There was 85 days time available to the complainant.  In the syllabi itself it is clearly informed the reference books and its author’s name available in the market.  So the statement of the complainant that he discontinued  the course due to  non availability of study materials is not true.  As and when complainant approached the University it is informed  that the study materials are available at study centers.  Complainant not approached the Udaya centre even though he knows the fact that the Study materials are available at study centers.  Complainant himself declared to discontinue from the course and also sent a lawyer notice. OP in its reply to legal notice informed the complainant that the fact of non a eligibility of the complainant for refund of fees paid by him. Copy of the letter is produced. Complainant declared to discontinue the course on        30-12-2009, after 85 days from the date of admission. As per decision of University Syndicate, Complainant is not eligible for refund.  As per practice in Bharthidasan University the examination and time table intimation will be sent to the candidates one year after completion of course duration.  The  Complainant name is not deleted. Hence it is not surprise to the complainant. It is value added service rendered by the university.  Complainant purposely discontinued the course even after giving reasonable time between the dispatch of the study material to the study center and commencement of examination. Complainant has not approached study center.  Among other grounds O.P.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Inspite of service of notice O.P.2 remained absent without sufficient reason or cause. Hence O.P. 2 is placed exparte.

5.      In order to substantiate the complaint averments, complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of the admission card, legal notice, reply letter, copies of correspondence, copy of the notice, examination application form, hall ticket, time table, copy of the repudiations letter issued by O.P.  O.P.1 not  filed his affidavit evidence in support of  the defence version. O.P.1 has produced letter dated 2-7-2010, minutes of the meeting dated 11-3-2010, copy of the letter dt:12-3-2010 sent to complainant.  Both Complainant & OP1 submitted the written arguments. Heard oral arguments from complainant and taken as heard from O.P.1 side.

6.      In view of the above said facts, the points now that arises for our consideration in this complaint are as under:

      Point No.1:-  Whether the complainant

  proved the deficiency in service

  on the part of the OPs?

Point No.2:-   If so, whether the complainant is

                     entitled for the reliefs now claimed?

       Point No.3:-  To what Order?

7.      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:

Point No.1:- In Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.

Point No.3:- As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

8.      At the outset it is not in dispute that the complainant lurd away with the colourfull presentations made by O.P.2, director of Bangalore school of management got enrolled to the distance education course in Bachelor of Business Administration with O.P.1 who is a center for distance education;  On 6-10-2009 and paid a sum of Rs.4,155/- to O.P.1.  The receipt issued by O.P.1 is produced O.P.1 assigned Admission card No.8040 and identity card  to the complainant. OP has assured to dispatch the study material within one month from the date of admission.  Inspite of repeated requests O.Ps. failed to send the study materials even in the month of December 2009.  Hence complainant got issued legal notice on 30-12-2009 requesting OPs to refund the amount along with compensation. On 5-1-2010 OP sent a letter to the

complainant asking for requisition along with original admission card and identity card.  On 20-1-2010 complainant complied the same.  Copies of the requisition and postal acknowledgement card is produced by the complainant for having sent the same.  Instead of refund complainant received application form and time table for examination. Copies of application form and time table are produced.  On 10-3-2010 OP sent a letter refusing to refund the fees.  Hence complainant approached this forum for the necessary reliefs.

9.      As against the case of the complainant the defence of the O.P.1 is that it has given provisional approval to O.P.2 as a academic partner institution for Bharatidasan university with a condition that provisional approval can be withdrawn at any time and students admitted will be transferred to near by approved institution if students strength is less than ten.  Initially complainant and two more candidates alone joined at Bangalore school of Management centre for BBA course.  Hence they are directed to continue their study at Udaya Centre.  There is no basis for this defence. O.P.1 has failed to produce any materials to show  that how many students were admitted, what should be the strength and when O.P.1 informed the complainant to continue his study at Udaya centre, hence same cannot be accepted. Further it is contended by O.P.1 that standing committee meeting held on 12-12-2010 ratified to revise the syllabus for BBA course through distance with effect from academic year 2009-2010.  The Syndicate of O.P.1 at its meeting held on 18-2-2010 also approved the decision of SCAA.  The resource persons were identified for preparation of study materials in accordance with the syllabus approved by the Syndicate.  This is  the actual reason for delay to dispatch of study materials for BBA course.  In the absence of any

material it is difficult to accepts the contention of the O.P.1 that there should be sixty days time between dispatch of study materials and examination.  Further it is contended by O.P.1 that study materials for newly framed syllabi have been prepared and sent to Udaya educational society Vijaynagar Bangalore on 3-2-2010.  Again there is no supportive documents produced by O.P.1.  Hence in the absence of any materials we are unable to accept the contention of O.P.1 that it has sent study materials on 3-2-2010.  The contention of O.P.1 that complainant himself declared to discontinue the course and not eligible for refund has no merits.  O.P.1 has not rendered any service to the complainant.  Hence   O.P.1 is not entitle to retain the fees. OP having accepted fees of Rs.4155/- from the complainant on 6-10-2009 has failed to supply the study materials till.  Dec. 2009 for the examination scheduled in the month of March 2010 and sent hall ticket and application for examination.  This act of O.P. amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.  We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Inspite of service of notice O.P.2 remained absent.  We can draw the inference that O.P.2 admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Under the circumstance we are of the view that complainant is entitled for refund of fees paid along with litigation cost of Rs.1000/-.  Accordingly we proceed to pass the following

ORDER

          The complaint is  allowed in part. O.P.1 is directed to refund Rs.4155/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. 

Complaint against O.P.2 is dismissed.

This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order failing which complainant is entitle for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 6-10-2009 to till the date of realisation.