BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30th December 2013
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.88/2013
(Admitted on 23.03.2013)
Ajay Kumar.R,
S o Rayappa,
Aged about 26 years,
Rat Mithrapatna Mukka Post,
Sasihithlu Road, Surathkal,
Mangalore, D.K. 575 021. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri. K.S.N. Rajesh)
VERSUS
1. The Principal,
St. Aloysius Institute of
Computer Science,
St. Aloysius College,
Mangalore 575 003.
2. Fr.Joseph Rodrigues,
The Rector,
St.Aloysius College,
Mangalore.
3. Fr.Francis Serrao,
The Provincial,
Karnatak Jesuit Province,
Loyola Mandir,
96 Lavelle Road,
Bangalore -560 001. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for Opposite Parties : Sri. K.S.Bhat)
* * * *
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. The above complaint is filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties i.e St. Aloysius Institute of Computer Science and others, Mangalore D.K. District Represented by its Principal and others claiming certain reliefs:-
The brief facts of the complaints are as under:
The above complaint is filed by the Complainant through their counsel against the Opposite Parties i.e. St. Aloysius Institute of Computer Science, St. Aloysius College, Mangalore D.K. District Represented by its Principal and others.
The Complainant who is the student joined the St. Aloysius Institute of Science for M.S. Software technology course which of two years duration (Post Graduation course) for the academic years 2010 - 2012 with the expectation of receiving M.S. Degree in Software Technology, as it was advertised in the media, official website and college prospectus. The Complainant stated that they had joined/opted the above P.G. course rather than the well accepted M.C.A. mainly due to the encouragement from the management, who assured that this is an advanced course in I.T. etc.
It is stated that, the Complainant appeared the examinations conducted in the college and also cleared with good marks in all the examinations, but to the utter disappointment Complainant received M.Sc. degree rather than the promised M.S. Degree and it is understood that it is an unlawful act to dupe the Complainant on the part of the management of Opposite Parties on keeping ill informed about the entire issue.
It is stated that, the above mentioned issue was raised during the first of the course itself, where the management had re-assured by stating that Complainant will be receiving the promised M.S. Degree and also regarding this issue meeting were held with the college management on 3rd September 2011 with the prior consent of one Mr.Fr. Denzil Lobo and the concerned member of college management. Various queries were raised in the meeting, but satisfactory solution was not given to the students regarding the issue by the management.
It is stated that, all the Complainant enquired regarding the change in the name of the degree awarded with the management, when enquired about it before the Mangalore university, wherein, university replied stating that the name of the degree cannot be changed as there is no mentioning of any such details with them.
It is further stated that, the Complainant got the I.D. cards mentioning their course as M.S. Software Technology and also the question paper of class test had the name of the subject as M.S. Software Technology. However, finally the Complainants received M.Sc. Software Technology which is totally different degree which was offered to the Complainant.
It is stated that, the Opposite Parties are liable and responsible for the aforesaid act of deficiency and also cheating the Complainant by stating/assuring to award M.S.(Software Technology) Degree but awarded M.Sc. (Software Technology Degree).
It is further stated that, the Opposite Parties have received in total sum of Rs.85,000/- only per year, in a total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- for the whole two years from the Complainant with a false assurance of award M.S. Degree and thereby Opposite Parties made the Complainant to suffer monitory loss, years and put to mental agony and future prospectus of life.
It is stated that, the Opposite Parties inspite of receiving notices from the Complainant has not taken positive step to settle the matter. Therefore, the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till payment and to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice issued to the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 by RPAD. Opposite parties appeared through their counsel filed version denied entire allegations alleged in the complaint and stated as follows:-
The first plea raised by the Opposite Parties are that the complaint is barred by Section 24A and not filed within the prescribed period of limitation and hence complaint is not maintainable on this ground.
Apart from the above, it is stated that the Complainant had applied and joined for M.Sc (Software Technology) as per applications submitted by them. It is stated that there is no word referring to M.S. in the said application. Moreover marks card of all the semester in respect of the above complaint shows the course as M.Sc. (Software Technology) (Expanded form of both M.S. and M.Sc is Master of Science and the university issues the degree certificates showing it master of science (Software Technology).
It is stated that, Opposite Party No.1 college is a autonomous institution is offering two years M.Sc. course approved by the Mangalore University since 2007 in addition to other courses. However, Opposite Party No.1 intended to change the nomenclature as M.S. (Software Technology) and started that course from the academic year 2010 – 2011. In furtherance of the same Opposite Party No.1 applied for the approval to Mangalore University, expecting approval of Mangalore University. Opposite Party No.1 had advertised in newspaper for admission for the academic year 2010–11 inviting application for M.S (Software technology) in addition to other three P.G. courses. However, Mangalore University did not approve the nomenclature as M.S. (Software Technology), the Opposite Party No.1 admitted students for M.Sc. (Software Technology) course and not M.S. Software Technology. The prospectus issued to the Complainant clearly provided for M.Sc. (Software Technology). Hence ignorance or cheating will not arise.
It is admitted that the Opposite Party had advertised in newspapers inviting applications for M.S. software technology, as the Mangalore University had not given permission for use of nomenclature as M.S. Software Technology the Opposite Parties had continued the course as M.Sc. Software Technology. It is stated that M.Sc. software was started in the year 2007.
It is also admitted that a meeting was held with the students and they were appraised about the correct facts by Dean of the Opposite Parties. No assurance was given by Opposite Parties at any point of time the Complainant would be receiving an M.S. Degree as averred in this complaint.
It is stated that, the name of the course was shown as M.S. in the I.D. cards and other documents produced by the Complainant with the complaint at the request of those students as desired by them to show the same to the banks for loan purposes. The students were well aware that they were applied and were admitted to M.Sc. course. There was no question of misrepresentation nor were they mislead. It is stated that most have them had collected the marks card of the first semester exam in the month of August, September, October 2010 itself which clearly mentioned the course M.Sc. (Software Technology). They were satisfied at that time itself about the nomenclature of the course and of the degree to be awarded to them by the university. It is stated that it is only an after thought that they thought to raise the present issue just to make unlawful gains for themselves. In the degree certificates ultimately to be issue by the university or any other competent body the nomenclature of the certificates would be as Master of Science only and not as M.S. or M.Sc course contend. M.S. Course proposed was not a new course but only change in the nomenclature.
It is further stated that, both M.S. and M.Sc. are two years courses and they are virtually one and the same, though in some university they call it as M.S. While in Mangalore University it is called as M.Sc. for the placement and employment purposes both are treated as the same. It is further stated that the Complainant and other students are of the said batch are well place in various multinational I.T companies with high salary packages and they did not suffered any inconvenience or loss and denied the deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
III. 1. In support of the above complaints, in Complaint Complainants was examined as CW- 1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked under Ex.C1 to C4. One Sri Rev.Fr.Swebert D’Silva, Principal of Opposite Party No.1 (RW-1) filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked under Ex R1 to R5.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complaint is barred by time?
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties institution have committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii): Affirmative.
Point No.(iii) & (iv): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINT NO. (i):
As far as the first plea is concerned, the Opposite Party contended that the complaint is barred by Section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. While discussing the above issue, we are of the opinion that admittedly the Complainant who is the student joined the St. Aloysius Institute of Science for M.S. Software technology course which of two years duration (Post Graduation course) for the academic years 2010 - 2012 with the expectation of receiving M.S. Degree in Software Technology, as it was advertised in the media, official website and college prospectus. But unfortunately complainant received the degree certificate on M.Sc. Software Technology instead of M.S. Degree in Software Technology in this case. So that the cause of action will continue from the day one they have joined the course until they obtained the degree certificate. So that the cause of action is continuing one and the question of limitation does not arise and the complaint filed by the Complainant is within time and issue No.(i) held in favour of the Complainant.
POINTS NO. (ii) to (iv)
As far as deficiency in service as concerned, we find that , in the instant case, the facts which are admitted is that the Complainant in the above complaint enrolled to M.S. Degree in Software Technology as it was advertised in the media, official website and college prospectus issued by the Opposite Party institution for the academic year 2010 - 2011. It is also admitted that, the St. Aloysius college collected Rs.85,000/- per year, in total a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- from the Complainant. The above said post graduation course is of two years duration.
Now the dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, the Complainant contended that he had joined the St. Aloysius Institute of Computer Science of M.S. Software technology course which is of two years duration (Post Graduation) for the academic year 2010-2011 with the expectation of receiving M.S. Degree in Software technology as it was advertised in the media, official website and college prospectus and paid Rs.1,70,000/- towards the degree course as demanded by the Opposite Party institution. But to the utter disappointment the Complainant received M.Sc. degree rather than the promised M.S. Degree thereby the Opposite Party committed deficiency as well as unfair trade practice and also the above said course was not approved by the university.
The Opposite Party on the contrary denied the allegations alleged in the complaint and stated that both M.S. software technology and M.Sc. software technology are two years courses and they are virtually one and the same, though in some university they call it as M.S. while in Mangalore University it is called as M.Sc. For the placement and employment purpose both are treated as the same. It is further stated that, Mangalore University had not given permission for use of nomenclature as M.S. software technology so that the Opposite Party herein had continued the course as M.Sc software technology and issued the degree certificate and denied the deficiency.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find from the admitted documents as well as the version filed by the Opposite Parties, it is proved beyond doubt that, the negligence of the Opposite Party institution in all the cases are writ large. Because we noted that, the Opposite Party institution specifically admitted before this authority in their version, Para No.5, it is stated as follows:- “It is submitted that O.P. No.1 college, an Autonomous Institution is offering Master of Science in Software Technology {abbreviated form is M.Sc. (Software Technology} course of two years(4 semesters) approved by the Mangalore University since 2007 in addition to other courses. However, O.P. No.1 proposed to change the abbreviation of the nomenclature from ‘M.Sc.’ as ‘M.S’ in Software Technology. Expecting approval of Mangalore University, O.P. No.1 had advertised in newspapers for admission for the academic year 2010-11 inviting applications for M.S. (Software Technology in addition to other PG courses. However, Mangalore University did not approve the change of the abbreviation of the nomenclature as M.S.(Software Technology).”
We are very surprised to note that institution like Opposite Party without approval from the statutory bodies like governing body in other words, without approval from the Mangalore University in full which is required to be obtained prior approval before commencing/starting the post graduation course like i.e. M.S. Degree in software technology before advertising in medias, official websites and college prospectus or elsewhere.
It is to be noted that, it is quite natural that when a reputed college like Opposite Party institution issues publication gives an idea that the Opposite Party institution became autonomous and the courses offered to the general public is approved and the students are getting post graduation degree certificates in M.S. Software technology as it was advertised in the above medias. These publications/prospectus issued by the Opposite Party institution definitely would allure the students herein the Complainants/general public to join the course and pay the fees as demanded by the Opposite Party institution and get the future prospectus of life.
In the above case, it is pertinent to note that, the Complainant under the impression that the Opposite Party institution being a one of the oldest institution has authenticity to start the course and the Complainant who is under good faith joined the course for the academic year 2010 – 2011 and paid the entire fees as demanded by the Opposite Party institution but they were not aware of the fact that the post graduation degree course opted by them were not approved by the statutory bodies like Governing body i.e. Mangalore University at the time of their admission.
However, now the point for consideration is that, according to the Opposite Parties both M.S. and M.Sc are two year courses and they are virtually one and the same. But we are not convinced with the Opposite Party because if at all both M.S. software and M.Sc. software technology are one and the same, then what is the necessity of the Opposite Party institution to obtain permission for use of nomenclature as M.S. Software technology. The Opposite Party in their version specifically admitted that they had an approval to start M.Sc software course in the year 2007 itself. When that being so, they should have continued the course as M.Sc. software technology instead of giving advertisement as M.S. degree in software technology. On the contrary, the counsel appearing for the Complainant drawn our attention in connected cases of the similar nature, wherein the Complainant summoned the documents i.e. a communications dated 4.7.2011 issued by the Mangalore University to the Opposite Parties on their query regarding change in the abbreviation of the M.Sc. Course. The documents issued by the Mangalore University i.e. marked as Ex.R4 in connected cases those are already disposed off before this authority, which has been taken into consideration even to this case and reproduced here below for the better appreciation:-
“
From the above document it is proved beyond doubt that the M.S. course is a technical course for two years and it has been identified and recognized AICTE and the candidates/students who have completed B.E./B Tech are entitled for the said course. Whereas, M.Sc. software technology is not equallent M.S. Software technology because in order to get admission to M.Sc. software technology, the degree B.Sc. or equallent degree is sufficient. So it is made very clear that M.S. Software technology has higher value than the M.Sc. software technology, so that the version of the Opposite Party in para No.13 is not convincing and credible.
From the above discussion as well as the document issued by the Mangalore University made very clear that the Opposite Party institution at the time of admission of the Complainant to the college is not recognized/approved by the Mangalore University to start the nomenclature of the M.S. software technology, without any approval from the university before introducing/commencing the above mentioned post graduation course the Opposite Party institution committed gross negligence as well as deficiency in service and also committed unfair trade practice.
However, we further observed that, the Opposite Party institution has got no right to commence/introduce the post graduation course under the nomenclature M.S. software technology without the approval from the Mangalore University which is a governing body as per the UGC norms. When such being the position, it is quite natural that the students herein the Complainant one who joined the Opposite Party institution and their parents are fear of their future as well as their money/time spent thereon. Because as we know the certificates of the post graduation degree’s plays an important role in order to perceive their employment opportunities. The Complainant in the above complaint joined the above said course that they are getting M.S. software technology post graduation certificate which has higher value than the M.Sc. Software Technology, naturally the Complainant is getting very good job opportunities in all respects than the M.Sc. software technology post graduation courses. Because one cannot compare the M.S. software technology with M.Sc. software technology.
We also observed that, because of the unfair trade practice/ deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party institution the Complainant was put to difficulty because they cannot repeat the P.G. course once again in any institution due to share their family responsibilities and they cannot use their Post graduation degree for their employments as equallent to M.S software technology. Under the above circumstances, approaching the court of law and demanding adequate damages in a case of like this nature is apparent from the face of it.
We further observed that, the Complainant immediately not approached the court of law, but they tried their level best to settle the matter amicably through the management by changing the degree as M.S. software technology as published in the media, official website, college Prospectus, but the Opposite Party institution committed blunder in this case because M.S. Software and M.Sc software technology is entirely has different foot, they cannot treat both are equal. In fact the Opposite Party institution should have taken approval from the university before introducing/commencing the nomenclature of the post graduation course titled as M.S. Software technology. But the Opposite Party not obtained a recognition/approval to start M.S. Software technology and later in order to conceal their mistake they have issued degree certificates and statement of marks card on M.Sc. software technology which has no consideration in this case. It is common knowledge that whenever a institution introduces new course/degree to the students Community in large/Consumers in large must keep in mind that before commencing /introducing the said course the said institutions possess approval/recognitions in advance not allowed to start the course when it was in process. In other words, it is the legal duty of the Opposite Party institution to commence the post graduation degree course or any other course only after compliance of all statutory obligations in advance and not later.
Further we should not forget to observe that, the Opposite Party institution being old institution should have thought before admission of the students for M.S. Software technology as advertised in the media and receiving lakhs of rupees towards the fees in advance that the nomenclature would be also the subject to the scrutiny of the university. That the university is one of the statutory bodies like governing body, just because the Opposite Party institution became autonomous from the academic year 2007 cannot act according to their whims and fancies and take a joy ride on the students and play with the career of the student herein the Complainant.
On overall consideration of the material evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party institutions failed to substantiate that Opposite Party institution is approved to start/commence the above said post graduation degree course in the year 2010-2011 till this date. However, now came up with some explanations that the Mangalore University not given approval etc etc. are not convincing/credible to appreciate the contentions taken by the Opposite Party institution. It is the primary duty of the Opposite Party institution to show the general public/students community and their parents herein the Complainant that their institution is approved to start/commence the above said post graduation course at the time of commencing/introducing as it was advertised in media and other official web sites. But in the instant case, the Opposite Parties categorically admitted in their version that their college had no approval but they applied for permission. That itself shows that the Complainant who has been duped and defrauded by the Opposite Parties by offering them that they are getting M.S. Post graduation in software technology to the Complainant. By false representations and allurements, admission fee and tuition fee in total Rs.1,70,000/- was extracted from the Complainant from the their hard earned money of their parents. But when the Complainant became aware of the same they have persuaded the matter with the Opposite Party management inspite the Opposite Parties institution failed in this case and later they issued M.Sc. post graduation certificates in software technology instead of M.S. software technology. When the advertisement and admission and prospectus was given on M.S. software technology how the certificate could be that of M.Sc. software technology. However, without any manner of doubt, we hold that, the Opposite Parties is carried on unfair trade practice of a highly fraudulent nature, in order to dupe and defraud the members of the student community at large. It can reasonably be inferred that like the Complainant, some other innocent students might have fallen in the track of Opposite Party. By carrying such trade and practice, the Opposite Party institution has not only infracted the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act but the Complainant can be proceeded against under the Criminal Law by the competent authorities. It is hoped and trusted that the Government of India will take notice under the relevant law and take action against the Opposite Party institution so that other student like Complainant is saved from being duped, cheated and suffer in their career prospectus.
From the above material evidence produced by the parties in Ex. C1 to C4 and Ex R1 to R5, it is made us very clear that the Opposite Party institution without an approval hurriedly commenced the Post graduation course in M.S software technology by misleading the innocent student community and thereafter the Mangalore University issued a endorsement and also stated the difference between M.S. software technology and M.Sc software technology and the weightage of the said post graduation degree. In a case of like this nature adequate compensation should be given to the student’s community and henceforth the institution like Opposite Party not allowed to repeat the same mistakes in mere future. Therefore, Opposite Party i.e. St. Aloysius College Represented by its Principal and others jointly and severally shall pay Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One lakh seventy thousand only) to the Complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till the date of payment. Further pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party i.e. St. Aloysius College Represented by its Principal and others jointly and severally shall pay Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One lakh seventy thousand only) to the Complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till the date of payment. Further pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 19 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of December 2013)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr. Ajay Kumar.R – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – Copy of the Identity Card.
Ex C2 – 7.4.2010: Copy of Fees Structure of M.S. software Technology course.
Ex C3 – 30.7.2010: Copy of the amount paid receipt.
Ex C4 – Copy of the amount paid receipt (2 in Nos.).
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW-1: Rev.Fr.Swebert D’Silva, Principal of Opposite party No.1.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex R1: 16.3.2011 : Copy of State of Marks of the Complainant for the I Semester.
Ex R2: 26.7.2011: Copy of State of Marks of the Complainant for the II Semester.
Ex R3: 14.2.2012: Copy of State of Marks of the Complainant for the III Semester.
Ex R4: 11.7.2012: Copy of State of Marks of the Complainant for the IV Semester.
Ex R5: 15.3.2013: Copy of Degree Certificate issued to the complainant.
Dated:30-12-2013 PRESIDENT
