Sri. M.C. Devakumar, Member                                                                                                                                                                                             

1. The complainant Sri V.C. Narasimhadatta, has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the opposite party University alleging  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to reimburse Rs.72,000/- incurred since Jan-2016 to till end of Jan-2019 with interest at the rate of 3% p.a. till the date of payment and to pay the cost of the proceedings of Rs.11,000/- and other damages and other reliefs.   
2. Brief Fact of the case:

The complainanthad approached OP University during 2015-16 and had joined for 1^st semester BCA degree course believing that the course has been recognised by the UGC. But the UGC had derecognised the BCA degree course conducted by the OP in the year 2013 itself.Despite derecognition, the OP conducted the 1^st semester examination for 2015-16 and suspended 2^nd semester examination and till date no examination was held.As such, the complainant could not complete the BCA course and later he could not get an opportunity of getting a job. Thereby, he suffered mental agony and hence alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OP.

3. The OP filed version stating that, the complainant has not disclosed his register number, in order to ascertain his  admission to the course.  Since the complainant has not paid the consideration and no service was rendered to him by them, there is no consumer relationship. The complainant took admission through OP’s Academic Collaborative Institutions (ACI’s) who conducted the courses governed by the them on fee sharing basis.  Owing to UGC directions, they have started withdrawing the courses from the ACI’s and directed not to take any fresh admissions, by publishing a public notice in news paper. As per the MOU., the ACI’s are bound to get recognition from the regulatory bodies for conducting the courses.  As such, the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both parties have lead their evidence by filing affidavits with several documents.  The learned counsel addressed arguments and posted the matter for orders.
5. The following points arose for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant establishes that, OP caused deficiency in service?

2.   What order?

6.  Our findings on the aforesaid point is as follows:

                    Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative

                   Point No.2: As per final order for the following

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- The complainant except furnishing the statement of marks issued by the OP, in respect of the BCA 1^st semester examination held in November-2015, has not placed any other documents to establish that, he has joined the OP University and no examination was conducted subsequently. Further, he has failed to prove that, in which institution he was admitted i.e., Academic collaborative Institution (ACI).   
8. The complainant relied on the marks card dated:29.01.2016 issued by the OP, for having conducted the 1^st semester BCA examination during November-2015(Ex.P-1) bearing register No.14227BCA0076 and argued that, he joined OP university during the academic year 2015-16 and had passed the 1^st semester BCA examination. Later the OP failed to conduct the course and examinations subsequently.  As such, he could not complete the course and get employment. Hence he suffered loss and mental agony.
9. The Op counsel argued that, the complainant has not disclosed his register number to ascertain his admission.  Further contended that, the complaint is not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation. Further OP contended that, they have published a public notice to all those concerned upon derecognition of certain courses by the UGC and not to pursue education in those ACI’s. As such, argued that, they are not responsible for the loss suffered by the complainant and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable.
10. On perusal of the material documents available on record, it is true that, complainant had joined OP University to the BCA course during the academic year 2015-16. But the UGC has derecognised the said course conducted by the OP for violation of its directions. Inspite of the same the OP conducted examination in the month of November-2015 and left without continuing the course leaving the students in the mid way. The complainant is one amongst them. From the above, it is found that, the OP have admitted the students to BCA course and conducted the course partially and left in the middle.  As such, the OP is liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant.  Hence the point No.1 is answered partly in “Affirmative’’.
11.  Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions on Point No.1, the complaint filed by Sri V.C. Narasihhadatta is deserved to be allowed in part. Hence the following:

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part.
2. The Opposite Party university (KSOU) is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and also the financial loss suffered,  to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
3. Furnish the copy of this order to the parties, at free of cost

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected

by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 30^th October, 2021)