BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.209/2010
Dated this the 16th day of June 2012.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A. : Member
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
ORDER
By G.Yadunadhan, President
The petition was filed on 09.06.2010.The case of the complainant is that complainant had joined the NITC IBM ACE Centre for doing her main project associated with the last semester university examinations. NITC is a highly reputed and accredited academic institution and a deemed university and is the only one of its kind in Kerala known for its academic excellence. Complainant had learnt about the NITC IBM ACE center, located in the NITC campus, from her seniors along with her class mates, contacted them initially in July 2009 and had preliminary discussions about the project and the assistance needed to complete the project. On positive assurance from them complainant paid a fees of Rs.2500/- on 08.08.2009 along with three other friends consolidated receipt of Rs.10,000/- on the very same day and subsequently a separate receipt was received by her after appropriating their share vide receipt No.3408 dtd. 23.04.10. The arrangement for working hours is six hour dedicated daily guidance through an experienced guide during the first phase of out project break (from December 1 to December 28, 2009) and continued service thereafter till the full completion of the project(May 2010) with prior appointment. For this complainant paid three times regular fees of Rs.7500/-. Accordingly on assuring that necessary languages like Core Java, Basics of SWING Applets and full support in Netbeans IDE for the development of the project Certificate for the project report. The service of the opposite party was not supporting. Hiding the above crucial information the centre purposefully made false promises and collected the payment without rendering the assured services. The management of the opposite party did not enforce sigh-in/ sign-out for the guide, for the hours that the guide was present in the center. The guide did not help at all in any way in connection with the development and completion of the project and hence no certificate for the project report was given as promised. Due to the deficiency of service from the opposite parties complainant suffered great loss and mental agony. Therefore complainant seeking relief against the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs.50000/- towards mental agony and refund of the payment of Rs.7500/- along with cost.
Opposite parties after serving notice entered in appearance, filed their version stating that complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. There is no hiring of service for consideration and the fee being collected is a standard fixed fee. Complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands. She is seen to have suppressed the true, correct and material facts of the case. The above complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties as NITC IBM advanced career Education centre is a necessary party in the above complaint for a proper and effective adjudication of the matter herein issue. NITC IBM advanced Career Education Centre is only a venture initiated by the Institute for the community Education activities and it is not a part of the main activities of the Institute. The NITC IBM ACE Centre aim at combining the experience of International business machines Corporations. The duration of the project was six months. In the said course only necessary guidance will be given for completing the project. Later the complainant left the said group for the reasons best known to her and joined individually for project guidance after remitting an amount of Rs.7500/- in two installments on 17.11.2009 and 23.04.2010. Remaining members in the said group completed the project and obtained successful certificate from the centre. The complainant even after joining individually for the project guidance, indicated as above was irregular in attending the centre and not shown any interest in completing the project which she has to do by her own. It is elementary that no centre can provide exclusive guidance for six hours daily for a particular student for a nominal fee of Rs.7500/-. The further allegations contained in Paragraph C(a) to (k) of the complaint are also not proper, correct or sustainable. The allegation that coordinator of the centre had instructed the staff Miss.Jincy to allegedly with hold crucial information from the complainant and the other students, that IBM had allegedly served that their contract with the centre and that the centre would be closed down in December 2009. Further allegation that the guide was present in the centre from 11.30 AM to about 01.30 PM and 2.30 PM to 03.00AM(two and half hours)for most of the days, she was mostly pre occupied other wise not available to the complainant, that this was possibly because the management did not enforce sign-in/sign-out for the guide is false and baseless and hence specifically denied by opposite parties.
The reliefs prayed for are not allowable against the opposite party. Complainant has not suffered any tension or mental agony on account of the centre or that of the opposite party. The claim of Rs.50000/- as compensation is baseless and unsustainable and also excessive exorbitant and disproportionate. The claim of refund of Rs.7500/- is also not legal. Under these circumstance complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration-
Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. If so what is the relief and costs.
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on complainant’s side. While examination of the complainant it is admitted that Exts.A1 & A2 is not sure that for the receipts were issued by opposite parties and also admitted that IBM ACE centre is the separate entity and further complainant admitted that Ext.A1 to A5 does not reveal that the complainant herself joined the OP’s institute. After the evidence of the complainant, case is posted for opposite parties evidence. From 03.11.2011 onwards complainant continuously absent for the last five consecutive postings. Opposite party was not cross examined by the complainant for proving out the actual truth. Only on perusal of Ext.A1 to A12 forum can not conclude the final decision of the case. Here complainant miserably failed to prove her case. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed without any cost.
Pronounced in the open court this the 16th day of June 2012.
Date of filing:09.06.2010.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Photocopy of Acknowledgement of Receipt dtd.17.11.09 for Rs.5000/-
A2.Photocopy of Acknowledgement of Receipt dtd.23.04.10 for Rs.2500/-
A3. Letter from the complainant to the opposite party dtd.09.03.2010.
A4. Letter to the opposite party dtd.12-04.2010 regarding the refund of the fees.
A5. Notice by the opposite party to the complainant dtd.04.05.2010.
A6.Stamped agreement and the prospectus of the Institution.
A7. Reply to information sought by the complainant request dtd.13.11.10.
A8. Reply Information requested by Sri.Abraham as per request dtd. 01.01.2011
A9. Project debit voucher submitted by opposite party
A10.Refund of the fee for the projects students dtd.24.05.2010 for Rs.28,750/-.
A11. Debit voucher details dtd 24.05.2010 of NIT-IBM Ace center
A12. Comments on the appeal preferred by the complainant dtd. 14.02.2011.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Abraham Joseph(Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President.
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
