SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> Sri. Prasanth Subramanian, Sri. Rajesh Pai, Sri. Sijoy and Sri.Anoop P.R. have jointly filed the complaint, before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the pposite parites. The brief facts of their contentions areas follows:- The complainants were made believe by the opposite parties that various computer course conducted in the 1st opposite party are recognized by the 2nd opposite party and it is assured by he opposite parties that the complainants will be given certificates from the 2nd opposite party after 2 years course. As such a sum of Rs.24,000/- was collected from the 1st complainant, a sum of Rs.27,000/- each was collected from the 2nd and 3rd complainant and a sum of Rs.20,300/- was collected from the 4th complainant. It is further contended that the amount of 2nd and 3rd complainants were paid by the Punjab National Bank and the amount of 1st and 4th complainants were from the Indian Overseas Bank, Alappuzha. It is stated that on 20.10.2001 the 1st opposite party collected Rs.27,600/- from Sijoy and issued receipt on that date. Sri. Rajesh Pai has got the receipt for the amount and Rs.2,750/- was given back to him. The amount paid by the banks were collected directly by the 3rd to 6th opposite parties and issued receipts. It is further contended that the complainants started course in 2001 and it was 2 years. But the 1st opposite party has not completed the course and failed to conduct proper classes to the complainants. 1st opposite party closed the institution and the complainants could not continue the course after 1st semester and they lost their years and money. The 2nd semester examination was conducted only on 14.1.2004 and opposite party failed to complete the course within the stipulated time and failed to conduct the exam in the proper time. But the opposite parties had collected the entire fee from the complainants in advance and failed to comply the necessary service. Since the complainants have not obtained positive response from the opposite parties, they have filed the complaints before the Forum seeking for relief. <br /> 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance before this Forum and filed version. In the version of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties it is stated that the 1st opposite party was a franchise of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and 4th and 6th opposite parties are the directors of the 1st opposite party. It is further stated that 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have no direct connection with the students enrolled by the franchise and there is no privity of contract with the students. The 1st opposite party had, against the agreement, collected cash from the students and has not paid any royalty money to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties; and that 1st opposite party has cheated the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties in royalty fees. Since the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have committed various breaches, the 1st opposite party the franchise agency already granted, terminated the agreement. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties stated that they are not liable to compensate the complainants in any manner. In the version of the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th opposite parties it is stated that the 1st opposite party paid all the amounts to their study materials to the complainants. As per the Franchisee agreement between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties conducted exam after completing the course and issue the certificates for those who passed out the exam. It is further admitted that the 2nd semester exam was only on 14.1.2004, and the delay was on the part of the complainants and further stated that conducting the exam and issue the certificates to the complainants was on the side of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties.<br /> 3. Considering the rival contentions of the parties this Forum has raised the issues:- <br /> (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite <br /> parties?<br /> <br /> (2) Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 4. Issue No.1:- On the side of the complainants, they have produced documents in evidence. Ext.A1 to A9 were marked. Ext.A1 is the receipt dt. 20.10.01 issued to the complainant Sri. Sijoy.S., for a sum of Rs.27,600/- by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the receipt dt. 20.10.01 issued by the opposite party to the complainant Sri .Rajesh Pai P.R. It was for an amount of Rs.24,850/- . Ext.A2(a) is the receipt dt. 30.9.01 for an sum of Rs.100/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant Sri. Rajesh Pai. Ext.A3 is the performance statement Semester II. Ext.A4 is the advocate notice dt. 29.7.05 issued to the opposite parties. Exts.A5 and A6 are the postal receipts. Ext.A7 is the reply notice of the advocate. Ext.A8 is the notice to the opposite parties which was returned. Ext.A9 is the Banks scroll in the name of complainant Sri. Sijoy. On a perusal of the above documents given in evidence, it can be seen that the opposite parties have collected amount from the complainants. But the opposite parties have not completed the semester course and proper classes were not taken to the complainants. The opposite parties were closed the institution deliberately after collecting the entire fees amounts from the complainants. The complainants have stated that the respective banks are about to initiate legal action against the complainants for the repayment. The opposite parties are bond to provide the necessary services as per the promise. The complainants could not complete the course due to action of the opposite parties and they lost their years due to the unexpected closure of the institution. The action of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they are jointly and severally liable for this. All the contentions raised by the opposite parties are without bonafides and cannot be accepted as valid grounds. These are gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties in denial of return of the amounts to the complainants. So we are of the view that the complaint is to be allowed. <br /> In the result, we direct the opposite parties to pay the respective amounts to the complainants with 18% interest from the date of receipt by the opposite parties together with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each to the complainants for the gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties and a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each. We further direct the opposite parties to pay the above said amounts to the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2008.<br /> Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN:<br /> Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH :<br /> Sd/- SRI. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI :<br /> APPENDIX:-<br /> Evidence of the complainant :-<br /> PW1 - Sijoy (Witness)<br /> PW2 - Rajesh Pai P.R. (Witness)<br /> Ext.A1 - Receipt No.1495 dt. 20.10.2001<br /> Ext.A2 - Receipt No.1496 dt. 20.10.2001<br /> Ext.A2(a) - Receipt No.1448 dt. 30.9.2001<br /> Ext.A3 - Performance statement Semester II<br /> Ext.A4 - Advocate notice dated 29.7.05<br /> Ext.A5 series - Acknowledgement cards and postal receipts (4 Nos.) (Photo copies)<br /> Ext.A6 - Postal Receipts<br /> Ext.A7 - Reply notice of the Advocate<br /> Ext.A8 - Notice of the opposite parties which was returned<br /> Ext.A9 - Banks scroll in the name of the complainant Sri.Sijoy<br /> <br /> Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil<br /> <br /> // True Copy //<br /> By Order<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> To<br /> Complainants/Oppo. parties/S.F.<br /> Typed by:-pr/-<br /> Compared by:-<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />