By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> Petitioner’s case is as follows:<br /> <br /> Petitioner was a student in the first respondent Beauty Parlour and 2nd respondent is the Proprietrix of the firm. The parties are friends and 2nd respondent made believe that 1st respondent is a well-renowned institution and offering various beautician courses with highest quality and issue course certificate to the students who complete the course successfully, which is most useful for a prosperous students in their career as beautician. It is also assured that the certificate issued from the 1st respondent institution is a most valuable one among the various institutions which offering beautician courses. Believing the words the petitioner joined for a course viz. course in ordinary beautician. After successful completion of the two months course on 2/10/04, the petitioner was issued the course certificate. In the certificate the name of the course was written as “Courses in Ordinary Treatment”. Since the petitioner paid the fees for course to “Ordinary beautician” which is more qualitative than courses in “Ordinary treatment” immediately she approached the 2nd respondent to get a correct certificate. After three days the petitioner got a new certificate. In that also there was mistake in writing the name of the course. In the certificate issued to petitioner it is filled as “Beautician course ordinary” instead of filling as “ordinary beautician”. The petitioner pointed out the mistake and demanded for a fresh certificate for several times. It was not done and the petitioner was insulted in front of others also. Lawyer notice issued on 20/10/04 calling upon to issue a certificate with correct particulars. But reply notice was sent stating incorrect things. But no remedy. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> The Counter of the respondent in brief is as follows:<br /> <br /> 2. The averment that the petitioner was earlier given with the certificate which is styled as ordinary treatment is not a mistaken one. Considering the petitioner’s request a new certificate was replaced, disclosing her qualification as beautician course ordinary. While she departing she has also requested for a receipt for the payment of fees. As there was no printed bill book available at that time, it was written in an available form and handed over. Long after the petitioner approached the respondent demanding that she wanted better certificate for which the answer given was the certificate can given only for the course she has undergone. The 2nd respondent has behaved only in a befitting manner conveying that the request of petitioner could not be entertained. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has undergone “ordinary beautician course” but she was awarded with “Beautician course ordinary”. Both are indicating one and the same course and the former is the spoken form and the later is the written form in the stylish way. The complainant is indulging in nothing but foul play. Hence dismiss.<br /> <br /> 3. The points for consideration are <br /> 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the new certificate as prayed?<br /> 2) Whether she is entitled for the fees and compensation as claimed?<br /> 3) Reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P9 and Exhibits R1. No other evidence.<br /> <br /> 5.Point No.1 The grievance of the petitioner is that after the course, the certificate issued to her from the beauty parlour is improper. She has completed the course of “ordinary beautician” but in the certificate it has written as “beautician course ordinary”. According to the respondent both are indicating one and the same course. When an authority is issuing a certificate it must be proper. Interpretation from the wordings are not proper in the case of certificates. Here the wordings “Beautician course ordinary” <br /> is used in the place of “ordinary beautician”. The apt and definite word which ought to be used in the certificate is “ordinary beautician course”. That is not done. The respondents has no case that both are different. So the apt word to be written is “Ordinary beautician” and there is deficiency on the part of respondents. So the respondent is liable to compensate it. This point is found against the respondent.<br /> <br /> 6.Point No.2 According to the petitioner the course has completed by her . She has paid the fees also. No dispute that the course is not over. So she is not entitled for the fees as claimed. But for the mental agony she is entitled.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to issue a fresh certificate to the petitioner entering the name of the course as “Ordinary beautician” and further directed to give Rs.1000/- (Rupees Onethousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) towards costs. Comply the order within one month. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst. transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 14th day of July 2008.<br />