BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P.No: 512/2003 Filed on 30..12..2003 Dated: 30..06..2009 Complainants: V. Somasekharan Pillai, T.C.6/1777, Quarry Road, PTP Nagar-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 038. Prashant. S ..do.. ..do.. (By Adv. A.G. Sasidharan Nair)
Present Address: V. Somasekharan Pillai, T.C.8/1932(1), “Ambadi”, EVRA-C45/2, Elippodu, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 006.
Opposite parties: 1.V. Veerabhadran, Centre Manager, Asset International (High-end Training Arm of APTECH Ltd.), TC-25/299(2), First Floor, Panamugham Buildings, Govt. Press Road, Pulimoodu, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. 2.The Regional Manager, Asset International, First Floor, Choice Towers, Manorama Junction, Kochi – 682 016. 3.APTECH Limited, Elite Auto House, 54-A, Sir M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093.
(Opp. Parties 2 & 3 by Adv. S.P. Chaly) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 31..10..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05.2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER: The allegations in the complaint are the following: The 2nd complainant had joined the Enterprise Computing (E.C) Information Technology Course by Asset International, the high-end training arm of Aptech Ltd. The course prospectus and their letter to Indian Overseas Bank clearly mentioned that the course was jointly certified by Asset International and Sun Microsystems USA with 100% placement support. The course duration was six months with a course fee of Rs.62,600/-. A special discount of Rs. 20,000/- was offered to the first batch of students and they were asked to pay a sum of Rs.42,600/- towards the course fee. The course started in August 2001 and took more than 1 ½ years to complete. No study materials from Sun Microsystems were given to the student as originally promised, except assurances to do so from time to time. On completion of the course taking one and a half years instead of six months, contrary to the promise made in the prospectus, the 2nd complainant was issued with a certificate by Aptech Limited, which was not jointly certified by Sun Microsystems USA. On enquiry though they gave verbal assurances that they were arranging on-line examinations with Sun Microsystems USA, nothing materialized and hence this complaint has been necessitated for refund of the course fee along with compensation and costs. 2. The 1st opposite party remains ex-parte.
3. The 2nd opposite party has filed a memo adopting the version filed by the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party in their version contend as follows: The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also bad for mis-joinder of an improper party. The 1st opposite party is only an employee of the franchisee of the 3rd opposite party. There is no privity of contract directly with a student who is admitted to the 1st opposite party, but at the same time being a franchisee entire course materials as per the prospectus of the 3rd opposite party is used for the education at the 1st opposite party's institute. The 1st opposite party only an employee of the franchisee expressed its willingness to have the license of Sun Micro Systems and accordingly the 3rd opposite party has forwarded necessary study materials of Sun Micro Systems with a specific direction not to utilize the same unless and until the license fee is forwarded to it in accordance with the conditions tie up made by the 3rd opposite party with Sun Micro Systems. The 1st opposite party did not pay the license fee and acquired the license so as to conduct classes in order to supply the study materials to the students. As a franchisee the 1st opposite party is bound to forward the names of the students admitted to the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party has send the certificate to the complainant since the name of his son was registered with it by the 1st opposite party, that when the 3rd opposite party came to know the situation created by the 1st opposite party, it was addressed to resolve the situation but it has not done anything. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party is not liable to make any payment claimed by the complainant. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The 1st complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P8. Though the opposite parties 2 & 3 have submitted no defence evidence as on 13/11/2008, an affidavit is seen filed for and on behalf of opposite parties 2 & 3. 5. The issues that would arise for consideration are: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and if, yes, which opposite party is liable for the same? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?
6. Points (i) & (ii) : There are two complainants in this case. The 1st complainant is the father of the 2nd complainant. The allegations in the complaint is that the 2nd complainant has not been issued with the certificate as agreed by the opposite parties. The 2nd complainant was attracted by an Information Technology Course namely Enterprise Computing (E.C) by Asset International, the high-end training arm of Aptech Ltd. through seminars and personal counseling conducted by them and as per the prospectus issued, it has been mentioned that the course is jointly certified by Asset International and Sun Microsystems USA with 100% placement support and the course was for six months, but it took more than one and a half years to complete. The complainants further allege that the 2nd complainant has been issued with a certificate by Aptech Limited which has not been jointly certified by Sun Microsystems USA contrary to the promise made in the prospectus. The opposite parties 2 & 3 contend that the 1st opposite party is only an employee of the franchisee of the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party had forwarded the study materials with a specific direction not to utilize the same unless and until the license fee is forwarded in accordance with the tie up made by the 3rd opposite party with Sun Microsystems and further contend that the 1st opposite party did not pay the license fee and acquired the license so as to conduct classes in order to supply the study materials to the students. As per Ext.P1 it is seen stated that Enterprise Computing The business-critical IT Course; Today & tomorrow, certified by ASSET & SUN Microsystems. Ext.P6 series prove the payment of fees by the complainant and the amount has been accepted by Asset International, the 1st opposite party, wherein the address of the 3rd opposite party has been mentioned as that of their Head Office & Regd. Office. The opposite parties 2 & 3 contend that the required fee has not been remitted by the 1st opposite party and though they have forwarded the study materials of Sun Microsystems with a specific direction not to utilize the same unless and until the license fee is forwarded. Here the aspect to be considered is that, the complainant has no knowledge with regard to the said tie up between the opposite parties and the complainant need not know also as long as the 1st opposite party has assured the issuance of certificate for a course jointly certified by Asset International & Sun Microsystems. This is purely an internal matter between the opposite parties. Though the 1st opposite party has not turned up to deny the said fact, the complainant is not expected to know the same also since the entire amount for the course has been collected by the 1st opposite party for the same.
7. The receipts issued show the address of the Head office of Asset International which is that of the 3rd opposite party. This being so, we are inclined to conclude that 1st opposite party and 2nd & 3rd opposite parties are branches of the same institution since the 1st opposite party has collected the amount for and on behalf of other opposite parties also ie., Asset International which is evidenced from the records on file. Now the opposite parties 2 & 3 cannot escape their liability and the complainant should not be made to suffer for the internal clashes if any between the opposite parties. Hence the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not providing service as agreed has been established.
8. The opposite parties 2 & 3 have contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. According to these opposite parties M/s. Prasura Associates is also a necessary party. But complainant has deposed that he has no relation with such an institution and the said institution has nothing to do with the course. We also find that since the opposite party has failed to establish the same there is no force in the argument put forward by the opposite parties 2 & 3. Hence this contention is found baseless. 9. Since the case of the complainants have been established, we find that the complainants are entitled for refund of the fee paid with 12% interest along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and a cost of Rs.2,000/- from the opposite parties jointly and severally.
In the result, the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.42,600/- (Rupees Fortytwo thousand six hundred only) with 12% interest from August 2001 along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainants within a period of one month of receipt of the order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No.512/2003 APPENDIX
I. Complainants' witness: PW1 : Somasekharan Pillai
II. Complainants' documents: P1 : Brochure printed by Opp. Parties P2 : Copy of letter dated 15/9/2001 addressed to the Manager, IOB by the opp. Parties. P3 : Copy of letter dated 3/11/2001 issued by Sr. Manager, IOB to the opp. Party P4 : Copy of letter dated 28/12/2002 issued by opp. Parties. P5 : Copy of certificate of accomplishment dated 4/2/2003 P6 : Copy of invoice dated 18/8/2001 for Rs.42,600/- P6(a) Copy of receipt dated 11/8/2001 for Rs.500/-
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P.No: 512/2003 Filed on 30..12..2003 Dated: 30..06..2009 Complainants: V. Somasekharan Pillai, T.C.6/1777, Quarry Road, PTP Nagar-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 038. Prashant. S ..do.. ..do.. (By Adv. A.G. Sasidharan Nair)
Present Address: V. Somasekharan Pillai, T.C.8/1932(1), “Ambadi”, EVRA-C45/2, Elippodu, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 006.
Opposite parties: 1.V. Veerabhadran, Centre Manager, Asset International (High-end Training Arm of APTECH Ltd.), TC-25/299(2), First Floor, Panamugham Buildings, Govt. Press Road, Pulimoodu, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. 2.The Regional Manager, Asset International, First Floor, Choice Towers, Manorama Junction, Kochi – 682 016. 3.APTECH Limited, Elite Auto House, 54-A, Sir M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093.
(Opp. Parties 2 & 3 by Adv. S.P. Chaly) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 31..10..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05.2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER: The allegations in the complaint are the following: The 2nd complainant had joined the Enterprise Computing (E.C) Information Technology Course by Asset International, the high-end training arm of Aptech Ltd. The course prospectus and their letter to Indian Overseas Bank clearly mentioned that the course was jointly certified by Asset International and Sun Microsystems USA with 100% placement support. The course duration was six months with a course fee of Rs.62,600/-. A special discount of Rs. 20,000/- was offered to the first batch of students and they were asked to pay a sum of Rs.42,600/- towards the course fee. The course started in August 2001 and took more than 1 ½ years to complete. No study materials from Sun Microsystems were given to the student as originally promised, except assurances to do so from time to time. On completion of the course taking one and a half years instead of six months, contrary to the promise made in the prospectus, the 2nd complainant was issued with a certificate by Aptech Limited, which was not jointly certified by Sun Microsystems USA. On enquiry though they gave verbal assurances that they were arranging on-line examinations with Sun Microsystems USA, nothing materialized and hence this complaint has been necessitated for refund of the course fee along with compensation and costs. 2. The 1st opposite party remains ex-parte.
3. The 2nd opposite party has filed a memo adopting the version filed by the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party in their version contend as follows: The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also bad for mis-joinder of an improper party. The 1st opposite party is only an employee of the franchisee of the 3rd opposite party. There is no privity of contract directly with a student who is admitted to the 1st opposite party, but at the same time being a franchisee entire course materials as per the prospectus of the 3rd opposite party is used for the education at the 1st opposite party's institute. The 1st opposite party only an employee of the franchisee expressed its willingness to have the license of Sun Micro Systems and accordingly the 3rd opposite party has forwarded necessary study materials of Sun Micro Systems with a specific direction not to utilize the same unless and until the license fee is forwarded to it in accordance with the conditions tie up made by the 3rd opposite party with Sun Micro Systems. The 1st opposite party did not pay the license fee and acquired the license so as to conduct classes in order to supply the study materials to the students. As a franchisee the 1st opposite party is bound to forward the names of the students admitted to the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party has send the certificate to the complainant since the name of his son was registered with it by the 1st opposite party, that when the 3rd opposite party came to know the situation created by the 1st opposite party, it was addressed to resolve the situation but it has not done anything. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party is not liable to make any payment claimed by the complainant. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The 1st complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P8. Though the opposite parties 2 & 3 have submitted no defence evidence as on 13/11/2008, an affidavit is seen filed for and on behalf of opposite parties 2 & 3. 5. The issues that would arise for consideration are: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and if, yes, which opposite party is liable for the same? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?
6. Points (i) & (ii) : There are two complainants in this case. The 1st complainant is the father of the 2nd complainant. The allegations in the complaint is that the 2nd complainant has not been issued with the certificate as agreed by the opposite parties. The 2nd complainant was attracted by an Information Technology Course namely Enterprise Computing (E.C) by Asset International, the high-end training arm of Aptech Ltd. through seminars and personal counseling conducted by them and as per the prospectus issued, it has been mentioned that the course is jointly certified by Asset International and Sun Microsystems USA with 100% placement support and the course was for six months, but it took more than one and a half years to complete. The complainants further allege that the 2nd complainant has been issued with a certificate by Aptech Limited which has not been jointly certified by Sun Microsystems USA contrary to the promise made in the prospectus. The opposite parties 2 & 3 contend that the 1st opposite party is only an employee of the franchisee of the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party had forwarded the study materials with a specific direction not to utilize the same unless and until the license fee is forwarded in accordance with the tie up made by the 3rd opposite party with Sun Microsystems and further contend that the 1st opposite party did not pay the license fee and acquired the license so as to conduct classes in order to supply the study materials to the students. As per Ext.P1 it is seen stated that Enterprise Computing The business-critical IT Course; Today & tomorrow, certified by ASSET & SUN Microsystems. Ext.P6 series prove the payment of fees by the complainant and the amount has been accepted by Asset International, the 1st opposite party, wherein the address of the 3rd opposite party has been mentioned as that of their Head Office & Regd. Office. The opposite parties 2 & 3 contend that the required fee has not been remitted by the 1st opposite party and though they have forwarded the study materials of Sun Microsystems with a specific direction not to utilize the same unless and until the license fee is forwarded. Here the aspect to be considered is that, the complainant has no knowledge with regard to the said tie up between the opposite parties and the complainant need not know also as long as the 1st opposite party has assured the issuance of certificate for a course jointly certified by Asset International & Sun Microsystems. This is purely an internal matter between the opposite parties. Though the 1st opposite party has not turned up to deny the said fact, the complainant is not expected to know the same also since the entire amount for the course has been collected by the 1st opposite party for the same.
7. The receipts issued show the address of the Head office of Asset International which is that of the 3rd opposite party. This being so, we are inclined to conclude that 1st opposite party and 2nd & 3rd opposite parties are branches of the same institution since the 1st opposite party has collected the amount for and on behalf of other opposite parties also ie., Asset International which is evidenced from the records on file. Now the opposite parties 2 & 3 cannot escape their liability and the complainant should not be made to suffer for the internal clashes if any between the opposite parties. Hence the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not providing service as agreed has been established.
8. The opposite parties 2 & 3 have contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. According to these opposite parties M/s. Prasura Associates is also a necessary party. But complainant has deposed that he has no relation with such an institution and the said institution has nothing to do with the course. We also find that since the opposite party has failed to establish the same there is no force in the argument put forward by the opposite parties 2 & 3. Hence this contention is found baseless. 9. Since the case of the complainants have been established, we find that the complainants are entitled for refund of the fee paid with 12% interest along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and a cost of Rs.2,000/- from the opposite parties jointly and severally.
In the result, the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.42,600/- (Rupees Fortytwo thousand six hundred only) with 12% interest from August 2001 along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainants within a period of one month of receipt of the order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No.512/2003 APPENDIX
I. Complainants' witness: PW1 : Somasekharan Pillai
II. Complainants' documents: P1 : Brochure printed by Opp. Parties P2 : Copy of letter dated 15/9/2001 addressed to the Manager, IOB by the opp. Parties. P3 : Copy of letter dated 3/11/2001 issued by Sr. Manager, IOB to the opp. Party P4 : Copy of letter dated 28/12/2002 issued by opp. Parties. P5 : Copy of certificate of accomplishment dated 4/2/2003 P6 : Copy of invoice dated 18/8/2001 for Rs.42,600/- P6(a) Copy of receipt dated 11/8/2001 for Rs.500/-
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
