BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 30^th day of November 2017

                                                      Date of filing :  682/14   :  12.09.2014

                                      683/14   :  12.09.2014

                                      684/14   :  12.09.2014

                                                          685/14           :  12.09.2014

                                                        689/14   :  16.09.2014

                                                          695/14   :  18.09.2014                                  

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                    President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                  Member

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                        Member.

C.C.Nos.682/14, 683/14, 684/14, 685/14, 689/14 & 695/14

                                   Between

COMMON O R D E R

Beena Kumari V.K.   Member 

1)     A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

         These 6 complaints were filed by the following complainants alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party – Tony Thomas, Managing Director of Indian School of Commerce, Kusumagiri, Kakkanad, Kochi.

1. Asok Nath                  -        C.C.682/2014
2. Kevin Suresh Koshy   -        C.C. 683/2014
3. Harikrishnan               -        C.C.684/2014
4. Jeff.John                    -        C.C.685/2014
5. Nebu Philip                 -        C.C.689/2014
6. Sohaib Mohammed     -        C.C.695/2014

The above mentioned 6 complainants have passed B.Com Degree course and after that, lured by the advertisements of the opposite party, all the complainants have joined the opposite party – institution.  The opposite party was conducting a course of ACCA (Association of chartered certified Accountants) affiliated to UK Board and having international accreditation and affiliation having validity in 177 countries.  The opposite party also made to believe the complainants that the institution run by the opposite party has all the proper approval or affiliation, adequate faculty, facility that the course will be started by June, 2014 and that out of the total 40 seats available in the opposite party – Institution, 38 seats were already filled, that spot admission can be obtained if the complainants pay Rs.22,972/- each on the spot to avail discount in the fees.  But only 12 students were actually joined for the course, that this year the ACCA UK is providing admission free of costs.  Thus the opposite party had obtained money from the petitioners fraudulently.  The opposite party had also obtained Rs.8,500/- from each of the complainants without giving any receipts.  The classes started only on 28^th August, 2014 instead of 24.07.2014. The total amount received by the opposite party from each of the complainants is as stated below:

Asok Nath                 (C.C.682/14)               -        Rs.1,04,972/-

Kevin Suresh Koshy (C.C.683/14)                 -        Rs.1,04,972/-

Harikrishnan              (C.C.684/14)               -        Rs.1,07,708/-

Jeff John                    (C.C.685/14)              -        Rs.1,04,972/-

Nebu Philip                (C.C.689/14)               -        Rs.1,04,972/-

Zohaib Muhammed    (C.C.695/14)                -        Rs.1,22,500/-

It is submitted by the complainants that the opposite party failed to supply uniforms, to conduct any regular classes, to supply any study materials to the complainants till this date, as promised.  The complainants had to shift their residence to Kochi with their parents, had to take flats on rent in the city for the convenience of the complainants and had spent huge money on that account.  The educational loan applications submitted by the complainants to the banking institutions were rejected on the ground that the opposite parties – institution is not an approved institution and the course conducted by the opposite party is not an approved course.  The complainants personally approached the opposite party and requested him to return the entire amount collected from them but the opposite party did not refund the amount collected but threatened the complainants with dire consequences.  The complainants contacted the ACCA, UK and by the communication dated 25.08.2014 they informed the complainants that the opposite party institution ‘Indian School of Commerce’ (ISC) is not an approved learning partner of ACCA.  Thus the act of the opposite party caused irreparable damage and inconvenience to the complainants and the precious one academic year of the complainants was unnecessarily lost and the complainants incurred heavy monetary expenses in connection with shifting of parents to Ernakulam and in taking rented flats/buildings in Ernakulam.  The complainants contended that the service offered by the opposite party was deficient and the opposite party had committed unfair trade practice.  In the above facts and circumstances, the complainants filed these complaints seeking orders of this Forum to refund to the complainants the amounts collected from them with 12% interest thereon, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- each towards compensation for the loss of one Academic Year and for reimbursement of expenses incurred for the rented accommodation availed by the complainants, to pay Rs.100,000/- each to the  complainants towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainants along with costs of these proceedings.

2)       Notices were issued to the opposite party from this Forum and the opposite party filed his version in response to the notice issued to him.

3)       Version of the opposite party

          These complaints are not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain these complaints.  Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the opposite party – Indian School of Commerce is a part of ISDC (International Skill Development Corporation) professional Network.  It has campuses at Bengaluru, Thiruvananthapuram, Kozhikode apart from one at Kakkanad, Kochi.  It has Liaison Office and support centres at Chennai and Hyderabad.  It is offering coaching classes and tutorials for students for ACCA (Association of certified chartered Accountants) and for CIMA (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants) Courses.  Both the courses are globally acclaimed.  It is admitted that the above complainants had enrolled in the opposite party’s Institution for undergoing coaching for appearing ACCA course approved by UK, that at the time of joining, the complainants and their parents or guardians had carefully gone through approved, consented and signed the application Forms and Enrollment Form. The complainants had enrolled as full time students in ISC at Infopark, Kakkanad only after satisfying the terms and conditions in the Student’s Hand book, fees structure.  The complainants had also undertaken that they shall not claim refund of the fee remitted by them in case they discontinue the course at any joint of time for whatever reason it might be.  The opposite party is offering only coaching classes or tuition classes for interested students so as to enable them to appear for ACCA course approved by UK.  No sanction or approval is necessary to conduct coaching classes for such students and the registration for UK approved ACCA course can be done independently after appearing for their examination conducted by British Council.  The status of ‘Approved Learning Partner’ is not mandatory for conducting coaching classes for ACCA Course UK.  No approval or affiliation is required.  It is submitted that the opposite party had told the students that they are trying to get the ‘approval learning partner status of ACCA course, UK and it will be obtained during the current academic year itself and the approval has been granted on 2710.2014.  It is submitted that there are adequate facilities at the campus.  The opposite party had never canvassed the students after offering false claims.  The opposite party had an offer to the students that early entries will have the benefit of waiving of administrative fee of Rs.11,235/-.  The statement of the complainants that there were only 12 students in the opposite parties institution is a false statement.  It is true that commerce graduates will be exempted from appearing for F1 to F4 papers and that the complainants were directed to pay an amount of Rs.22,972/- on the spot for availing discount of fees and Rs.8,500/- received by the opposite party is the Registration charge for the course which is paid directly to ACCA UK.  The classes were started in July 2014 as scheduled and the last semester examinations were conducted by the Board in December 2014 and the results are awaited.  The allegation that the opposite party has received an amount of Rs.104,972/- is false and Rs.8500/- paid is for registration to the course and that was paid to ACCA UK.  No damage or inconvenience had been caused to the complainants due to the act of the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice practiced by the opposite party.  Therefore, the opposite party is not liable to pay compensation to the complainants for the mental agony suffered, since the complaints themselves have discontinued their studies on account of the course being a bit tough.  It is therefore, prayed that these complaints may be dismissed.

4)       The common issues to be considered in these cases are as follows:

          i).    Whether these complaints are maintainable before this Forum?

ii).  Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service or unfair   trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

iii).   Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation for the mental agony suffered, for the monetary loss and inconvenience suffered by the complainants, along with costs?

5)       The oral evidence adduced by Jeff John, as PW1 in consumer complaint No.C.C.685/14 is adopted as the common oral evidence in all the 6 cases against the very same opposite party.  The documentary evidences furnished by the complainant Jeff John in C.C.No.685/14 were marked Exbt.A1 to A15 series.  The case No.685/14 is taken as the leading case.  Corresponding evidence in all other cases are taken into consideration for the disposal of all these 6 complaints.

Heard the Counsel for both the complainants on 10.11.2017.

6)       Issue Nos. (i) and (ii)

          All the 6 complainants had joined the institution run by the opposite party for undergoing training course for preparing themselves for admission to ACCA Course affiliated to UK Board and the opposite party had received the course fee from all the 6 complainants.  On the above ground the complainants are ‘consumers’ and the opposite party is the ‘service provider’.  Hence these complaints are found maintainable before this Forum.  The complainants contended that the opposite party had informed that the institution run by the opposite party is having the approved learning partner status of ACCA course of UK.  The opposite party in his version fairly conceded that the institution run by the opposite party will obtain the Approval of learning partner status of ACCA course UK during the current academic year itself.  Thus it is proved beyond doubt that the institution run by the opposite party was not holding the Approved learning partner status at the time of the complainants joining the course.  No evidence whatsoever is produced by the opposite party showing that the above fact was intimated to the complainants beforehand.   Therefore, the contention of the complainants that they were made to believe that the institution run by the opposite party had ‘Approved learning partner status of ACCA course of UK is found believable and is therefore accepted. The next contention raised by the complainants is that an amount Rs.8500/- was received from each of the complainants in addition to the course fee.  The opposite party submitted that the said amount was received towards registration fee and the said amount was paid directly to ACCA UK.  But no evidence produced before this Forum to prove the above fact.  Thus on the date of payment 25.08.2014 the opposite party was not holding the approval learning partner status of ACCA Course of UK.  In the version the opposite party has stated that his institution has received the Approval clearing partner status on 27.10.2014.  The complainants had alleged that no proper classes were taken by the opposite party.  The above allegation is not controverted by the opposite party by adducing necessary evidence.  No evidence produced by the opposite party to prove that the classes were taken by qualified teachers, that there were sufficient number of students in the class, that the institution run by the opposite party is having adequate facility to conduct the classes. The above facts go to prove that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  The (i) and (ii) issues are thus decided in favour of the complainants.   We also find that the complainant’s are entitled to get refund of the course fee with 12% interest thereon.  

7)       Issue Nos. (iii)

          The complainants claimed compensation for the loss of one academic year and for the loss of money which was spent for taking rented accommodation in Ernakulam District.  We find that the complainants are not entitled to get reimbursement of the expenses incurred for taking flats on rent basis since the said expense involved has no direct connection to the 1^st issue in this case.  However, we find that the complainants are entitled to get compensation for the loss of one Academic Year and for the mental agony and other inconvenience suffered by them due to the deficient service and unfair trade practice practiced by the opposite party.  We fix the compensation amount at Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of one academic year and for the mental agony and other inconvenience suffered by the complainants, to each of the complainants in these complaints.      

8)       The complainants have spent their valuable time and money to contest this cases.  Had the opposite party refunded the course fee when the complainants approached the opposite party, this complaint would not have been filed by the complainants.  We find that each of the complainants are entitled to get costs of Rs. 5000/-.   

10)     In the result, these complaints are allowed in part and we direct as follows:

1.       The opposite party shall refund the course as stated below:

          Rs.104,972/- to Ashok Nath with 12% interest p.a. from 06.05.2014 till realization.

          Rs.104,972/- to Kevin Suresh Koshy with 12% interest p.a. from 06.05.2014 till realization.

          Rs.107,708/- to Harikrishnan with 12% interest p.a. from 06.05.2014 till realization.

          Rs.104,972/- to Jeff John, with 12% interest p.a. from 10.05.2014 till realization.

          Rs.104,972/- to Nebu Philip with 12% interest p.a from 06.05.2014 till realization.

          Rs.122,500/- to Sohaib Mohammed with 12% interest p.a. from 31.05.2014till realization.  

2.       The opposite party shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- each to the 6 complainants towards compensation for the loss of one academic year and for the mental agony and other inconvenience suffered by the complainants.

3.       The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.5000/- each to the 6 complainants towards costs of these proceedings.  

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of November 2017.

Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch:

By Hand :

By Post:

                                                APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:         

Depositions  :

PW1                ::   Jeff John 

DW1                ::   Tomy Thomas

                                         …................