This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, and Sri. M.Indra Vijaya Rao,  Advocate, Kurnool for opposite Party No.2, and opposite party No.1 called absent  set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-

ORDER

 (As per Smt C. Preethi, Hon’ble  Lady Member)

1.       This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act 1986 seeking a direction on  the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for loss of one valuable academic year, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.3,000/- collected by opposite party No.2 towards guidance and counseling fee, Rs. 335/- collected towards examination fee,  costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The brief facts of the complainant case is that the complainant after seeing publicity and advertisement of opposite party No.2 joined M.A (Psychology) Course  with opposite party No.2 study center, who is a authorized study center of opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.2,000/- on 29.1.2005 and Rs.1,000/- on 1.3.2005 towards guidance and counseling fee.  The opposite party No.1 issued enrolment No. 1044204487 for M.A (Psychology) Course. On 6.4.2005 the complainant obtained DD for Rs. 335/- towards examination fee in favour of opposite party No.1 and handed over the same to opposite party No.2. On 28.10.2005 the opposite party No.2 sent a xerox copy of letter of opposite party No.1 about the discontinuation of the course, even though opposite party No.2 came to know about the discontinuation in the month of August 2005, he took two months time to inform the same to the complainant and asked the  complainant to change his subject.  If opposite party No.2 have informed the discontinuation immediately the complainant would have saved his time and academic year.  After discontinuation of course the complainant approached opposite party. No.1 for refund of Rs. 3,035/- collected towards guidance and counseling fee but opposite party No.2 refused to return, hence, got issued legal notice dated 17.11.2005 to both the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after receiving the notice did neither replied nor paid the amount and opposite party No.2 replied dated 17.12.2005 disowning his liability. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this complaint before this Forum for redressal.

3.       In substantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) Prospectus of V.B.S Purvanchal University, Directorate of  Distance Education (2) receipt dated 1.3.2005 issued by opposite party No.2 for Rs. 1,000/- (3) receipt dated 29.1.2005 issued by opposite party No.2 for Rs.2,000/- (4) Counter foil, dated 6.4.2005 for obtaining draft for Rs. 300/- (5) xerox copy of opposite party No.1 letter dated 29.8.2005 and (6) office copy of legal notice dated 17.11.2005 along with two postal receipts, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in-reiteration  of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.6 for its appreciation in this case.

4.       In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 remained absent through out the case proceedings and were made exparte. The opposite party No.2 appeared through their standing counsel and filed his written version.

5.       The written version of opposite party No.2 denies the complainant as neither maintainable in law or on facts and admits the complainant paying Rs. 2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party No.2 towards guidance and counseling fee for studying of M.A (Psychology ) course offered by opposite party No.1 and also the complainant obtained  a demands draft for Rs.335/- in favour of opposite party No.1 towards examination fee and also opposite party No.1 sending study material. to the complainant.  It further submits that he is an authorized Co-ordinator for V.B.S Purvanchal University (O.P.No.1) between the student and the university and not an agent of opposite party No.1.  The opposite party No.1 issued study material and ID card to the complainant and the distance education programme is exclusively under the control and care of university itself and opposite party No.2 is not at all responsible for any of the acts done by the opposite party No.1. Hence, it is wholly and solely opposite party No.1 who  is responsible for its own faults or misdeeds       as alleged by the complainant.  It further says that the complainant is a regular student of BL course and there is no loss of academic year for him and the complainant suppressed the above fact of his B.L Course.  The discontinuation of Distance Education program is an unilateral decision of opposite party No.1 having its own reasons and opposite party No.2 has nothing to do with the decision of opposite party No.1 except to communicate the same to the complainant and the other students as co-ordinator. The opposite party No.2 received letter dated 29.8.2005 on 15.10.2005 from opposite party No.1 explaining the reasons for discontinuation of distance education programme and inturn opposite party No.2 communicate the same of its students and hence there is no deficiency of service on part of  opposite party No.2.  If the student is not willing to continue their studies an option was given by the University to refund the fee by submitting  Form ‘B’ by the students.  Hence, the opposite party No.1 under took to repay the fees and compensation if any to the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.

6.       In substantiation of their case the opposite party No.2 filed the following documents Viz (1) postal cover sent by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2. and (2) reply notice dated 17.12.2005 of opposite party  No.2 to complainant Advocate, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 in reiteration  of its written version and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 and B.2 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party No.2 caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.

7.       Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service:?

8.       In this case there is no dispute on the point that the complainant had sought admission to study M.A. in Psychology with opposite party No.1 through opposite  party No.2 by paying Rs.1,000/- & Rs.2,000/- as guidance & counseling fee vide Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 and paid Rs.300/- vide Ex.A4 to opposite party No.1 towards examination fee. There is no dispute as tot the discontinuation of course by opposite party No.1 vide Ex.A5 Dt:29-08-05. The complainant alleges that the opposite party No.1 unilaterally discontinued the said course to which the complainant joined without prior intimation and also alleges that opposite party No.2 delayed in intimating the discontinuation by course by opposite party No.1 and which resulted in loss of academic year.

9.       It is very much clear that the complainant joined M.A., Psychology with opposite party No.1 and study material was supplied to the complainant & the complainant also paid examination fee for appearing for exams. The opposite party No.1 unilaterally discontinued the said course without prior intimation to the complainant vide Ex.A5 letter Dt:29-08-05 of opposite party No.1 addressed to opposite party No.2 and in turn opposite party No.2 intimated the same to the complainant. The unilateral discontinuation of course by opposite party No.1 is certainly amounting to deficiency of  service & which is sufficient for the complainant  to cause inconvenience & hardship & opposite party No.1 is liable to return the fees collected from the complainant along with costs & compensation.

10.     The other allegation of complainant is that the opposite party No.2 received the letter Dt:29-08-2005 in August itself but intimated the complainant in the month of October, but the opposite party No.2 submits that it received the said letter (Ex.A5) in Ex.B2 cover of opposite party No.1 on 14-10-2005 & inturn they intimated the complainant on 28-10-2005 and there is a no delay on their part. In Ex.B1 there is nothing to show that the said letter Ex.A5 was received on 14-10-2005 as alleged by opposite party No.2, & there is no cogent substantiating proof to prove that Ex.A5 was received in Ex.B1 hence it cannot be believed that Ex.A5 was sent by opposite party No.1 in Ex.B1. Hence, there appear delay on part of opposite party No.2  in intimating the discontinuation of course by opposite party No.1, to the complainant which is certainly enough for the complainant suffer immense disappointment & inconvenience. Hence, the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

11.     To sum up, the opposite party No.1 liable for unilateral discontinuation of course without prior intimation to the complainant and opposite party No.2 is also liable for delay in intimating to the complainant about the discontinuation of course by opposite party No.1.

12.     In the result, the complaint is allowed directing opposite party No.1 to return the Fee of Rs.1,000/- & Rs.2,000/- & Rs.335/-  to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of payment till realization along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for unilateral discontinuation of course by opposite party No.1 and costs of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation for delay in intimating the complainant about the discontinuation of course. The opposite parties are directed to pay the Supra awarded amount with in a month of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the  1^st  day of February, 2007.

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant: Nil                                       For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1 prospects of V.B.S. Purvanchal University, Directorate of Distance  

          Education.

Ex.A2 Receipt, dated:01-03-2005 No.665 issued by opposite party No.2 for

          Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A3 Receipt, dated:29-01-2005 No.144 issued by opposite party No.2 for

          Rs.2,000/-.

Ex.A4 Counter foil, dated:06-04-2005 obtaining draft of Rs.300/- in favour of

          opposite party No.1.

Ex.A5 Xerox copy of opposite party No.1 letter, dated:29-08-2005 addressed to

           its co-ordinators, Distance Education Study Centre along with cover

           postal by opposite party No.2.

Ex.A6 office copy of legal notice, dated:17-11-2005 along with its postal receipts

          (2).

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1 postal cover addressed to opposite party No.2 by opposite party No.1.

Ex.B2 office copy of reply notice, dated:17-12-2005 caused on the counsel of

          complainant.

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT

Copy to:-

1. Sri. M.Shivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.

2. Sri M.Indra Vijaya Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.

3. The Director,Directorate of Distance Education,V.B.S. Purvanchal University,

    Jaunpur,Uttar Pradesh.

Copy was made ready on:

Copy was dispatched on:

Copy was delivered to parties: