Sri. M.C. Devakumar, Member                                                                                                                                                                                             

1. The complainant Sri V.C. Shankar Prasad, has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to reimburse the cost of Rs.72,000/- incurred since January 2016 to till 31.01.2019 with interest at 3% p.a. and cost of the proceedings of Rs.11,000/- with damages and such other reliefs.   
2. Brief Fact of the case:

The complainantjoined OP university and has passed B-Tech Degree in Mechanical Engineering from OP University. But the Degree was not recognised by the University grants Commission (UGC) as well as All India Technical Education Counsel (AITEC) due to unfair trade practice and violation of norms by the OP University.

3. The complainant took admission in the OP University during the year 2011-12 and completed the degree in the month of September October 2015. Later on he has applied for job. But his degree was not considered by any of the employer. Because the degree conferred by the OP University was not recognised by the UGC as well as AITEC. Hence the aggrieved complainant has filed this complaint having suffered mentally and for the loss of time and money alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OP.
4. The OP denied the contractual relationship with the complainant as they never conduct any technical course. It is the Academic collaborative institutions that conducted the technical courses, who are supposed to get the recognition from the concerned statutory authorities. Thereby the complaint is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint against them.             
5. Both parties have lead their evidence by filing affidavits along with several documents. After hearing the arguments of both sides matter is posted for orders.
6. The following points arose for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OP University.

3.   What order?

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

Point No.1 & 2: Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3: As per final order for the following

REASONS

8. Point No.1 & 2:- The complainant relayed on the statement of marks issued by the OP University for having conducted the     B-Tech examination in Mechanical Engineering by the OP university for the period January 2012 to September 2015 to establish that he has joined the OP university and completed the studies with the OP University and successfully completed the course. Further the complainant has filed the application proforma for having applied for the job with various employers. However the complainant has not produced any intimation with regard to rejection of his application for the job by the employer on the grounds of non recognition of the B-Tech Degree course.
9. The OP University contended that they are admitting the students issue study material conduct examination valuation and announces results directly.  In another mode of admission students are taking admissions to the academic collaborative institutions or their study centres. Who issue prospectus, collect admission fees and verify the relevant documents before admission. Such institutions collect fees and remit 25 to 30% of the fees to the university. As such those institutions are bound to take necessary approval or recognition from the concerned authorities. And after completion of all the procedure the institutions intimate the university. Inturn upon receipt of the intimation, the they issued the statement of marks.  As such it is very much necessary to implead the concerned academic collaborative institution as necessary party.  In absence of the same the complaint is not maintainable. As such prays for dismissal of the complaint against them.
10. Considering the statement of marks issued in respect of the complainant by the OP University in receipt of the B-Tech in Mechanical Engineering course between January-2012 to September-2015, it is proved that the OP have conducted the technical course and have finally issued the statement of marks to the complainant bearing Reg. No.114211FBTME019. In view of the admissions of the OP that the technical course were not recognised by the UGC as well as AITEC, the OP has fraudulently concealed the fact of non recognition of the technical course by the statutory authorities, admitted the complainant and conducted the course.  Which was of no use in get in employment. Therefore the complainant has suffered loss and mental agony and hence the point No.1 & 2 is answered partly in “Affirmative’’.
11.  Point No.3:- With the above observations on Point No.1, the complaint filed by Sri V.C. Shankar Prasad is hereby  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.5,00,000/- 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)