BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 427/2001 Filed on 18.10.2001<br /> Dated : 30.07.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Beena. V.S, Vijaya Mandiram, Pallichal P.O, Nemom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 020.<br /> (By adv. S. Reghukumar) <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.Wintech Computers, Mullassery Towers, 3rd Floor, Vanrose Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2.Wintech Computers, B.C.D, 3rd Floor, Vallamattom Estate, Ravipuram, Ernakulam.<br /> <br /> 3.G.I. Infologics, Mullassery Towers, Jacob's Junction, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> (By adv. K.L. Narasimhan)<br /> <br /> Additional opposite party:<br /> <br /> 4.M/s Wintech Computers, Jagadamba House, Peru Baug, Guregaon(East), Mumbai – 400 063. <br /> <br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 15.07.2008, the Forum on 30.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT<br /> The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that on 5th June, 2000 opposite parties published an advertisement in “The Hindu” newspaper announcing that they were offering “the best ever web-intensive course” “FOCUS” with a comprehensive syllabus. On subsequent dates they announced through newspaper advertisements that they were going to conduct a scholarship called Winset Scholarship Eligibility test on 16.07.2000 at 3 centres in Kerala. Those who have passed 12th standard could register their names as candidates for the test by paying Rs. 50/- as registration fee. Based on the performance of the candidates in the Winset Scholarship test they would be given fee concession for computer courses offered by Wintech Computers. Prompted by the said advertisement complainant got registered her name as candidate for the Winset Scholarship eligibility test. The test was conducted on 16.07.2000 at Thiruvananthapuram. Opposite party sent a letter dated 25.07.2000 to the complainant that she had scored well in the scholarship test and the opposite party has granted her 25% of the scholarship. To avail the benefit of the scholarship complainant had to register before 31.07.2000 and the new batch for various courses would commence on 01.08.2000. Opposite party had promised the complainant that the course would be completed within 6 months from the date of commencement. Complainant had joined the course named Focus. The said course had four modules. The total course fee was Rs. 29500/-. As the complainant had been awarded 45% of the scholarship by the opposite party she has to pay Rs. 16225/- as the total course fee. On 30.08.2000 complainant paid Rs. 1000/- as registration fee to the opposite party. On 07.09.2000 complainant paid Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party. The complainant paid Rs. 4000/- as the second instalment on 12.10.2000 to the opposite party. The opposite party has made acknowledgement of the receipt of these amounts. The courses were commenced on 11.08.2000 and it had to be completed on 11.12.2000. The classes were not promptly conducted and there were no competent teachers also. The complainant had brought this fact to the opposite party's notice after which they brought a new faculty member from Ernakulam. But he left the institution within a few days. Without completing the first module, the teachers started the second module. By this time the complainant got information from the media that the opposite party are in deep trouble. They are at the edge of collapse. Opposite party gave assurance to the complainant that they do not have any problem in Kerala. By November most of the staff at the institution had left and by December the said institution was completely closed down. No certificate was issued to the complainant. The action of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint claiming refund of Rs.8000/- with 18% interest thereon, Rs. 25000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10000/- towards costs of the proceedings. <br /> 1st, 2nd and additional 4th opposite parties remain exparte. 3rd opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable against the 3rd opposite party either on facts or on law. This forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Complainant has not purchased any goods nor availed any service for consideration from the 3rd opposite party. The complaint is bad for non-joinder/mis-joinder of necessary parties. 3rd opposite party is engaged in the business of software development and having infrastructure including computers and ample space and other facilities in the Thiruvananthapuram city. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by Wintech Computers having its office at Jagadamba House, Goregaon (East), Mumbai inviting quotations for providing space and infrastructure for running their computer centre in Thiruvananthapuram city, this opposite party offered to let their space (admeasuring to 1577 sq. ft.)computers and other infrastructure on the 3rd floor of Mullassery Towers at the rate of Rs. 71179/- per month for a period of six months commencing from 15.05.2000 to 14.11.2000. As the Wintech Computers failed to make prompt payment of the rental for space and infrastructure, the arrangement was broken and the same was frustrated. The 3rd opposite party proceeded against other opposite parties and proceedings are pending against them in various courts. The relation between the Wintech computers and the 3rd opposite party was only a lease arrangement and the 3rd opposite party is ignorant about the courses offered and its conduct. 3rd opposite party does not have any involvement, say control or management of the centre run by the Wintech Computers. Due to the misconduct of the men behind Wintech and non-payment of rentals 3rd opposite party took possession of the building in mid-December. This opposite party has not promised anything to the complainant and therefore the question of failing to honour the same does not arise at all. No cause of action has arisen against the 3rd opposite party on any day, anywhere as averred in the complaint. Hence 3rd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in limine with exemplary cost. <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 8000/- with interest thereon from opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (iii)Reliefs and costs. <br /> <br /> To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of herself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and marked documents as Exts. P1 to P7. On behalf of 3rd opposite party, Balakrishnan Nambiar, the Director of 3rd opposite party has filed an affidavit as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief. 3rd opposite party did not file any documents. <br /> Points (i) to (iii):- It has been the case of the complainant that pursuant to an advertisement in “Hindu” newspaper that opposite parties were offering “the best ever web-intensive course”, “FOCUS”and going to conduct a scholarship called Winset Scholarship Eligibility test on 16.07.2000, at three centres in Kerala. Complainant sought registration after paying Rs. 50/- as registration fee. Ext. P1 is the copy of the said advertisement. As per Ext. P1 the said advertisement is seen given by Wintech Computers (opposite parties 1,2 and 4). Submission by the complainant is that the said test was conducted on 16.07.2000 at Thiruvananthapuram. Opposite parties informed the complainant that complainant had scored well in the scholarship test by way of Ext. P2. As per Ext. P2 dated 25.07.2000 Wintech Computers have awarded 45% of scholarship to the complainant and to avail such scholarship complainant was requested to register before July 31. Submission by the counsel appearing for the complainant is that opposite parties had promised the complainant that the said course would be completed within 6 months from the date of commencement. Complainant had joined the course named Focus. It has also been the case of the complainant that the course fee was Rs. 29500/-. After adjusting 45% of the scholarship as awarded by Wintech Computers as per Ext. P2, the remaining course fee would be Rs. 16225/-. On 30.08.2000 complainant paid Rs. 1000/- as registration fee to the opposite party and opposite party had issued a receipt by Ext. P3. On 07.09.2000 complainant paid Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party as first instalment and 1st opposite party Wintech Computers issued a receipt by Ext. P4. On 12.10.2000 complainant paid Rs. 4000/- to the opposite party Wintech Computers and opposite party issued a receipt by Ext. P5. As per Ext. P6 invoice Wintech Computers acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 8000/- (Rs. 1000/- + Rs. 3000/- + Rs. 4000/-). Ext. P7 is the copy of the student identification card, wherein the terms and conditions have been mentioned. On the next page of Ext. P7 fee payment is also described. The grievance of the complainant is that the said course was not completed as promised by the Wintech computers. Submission by the complainant is that the classes were not promptly conducted and there were no competent teachers also. The faculty members who was in charge of the batch left in the first week itself. For the next weeks, there were no teachers or other competent persons to guide the students. When complainant brought this fact to the notice of opposite parties, opposite parties brought a new faculty member from Ernakulam. But he left the institution a few days. Further without completing the first module, the teachers started classes for the second module. Staff left the institution and by first week of December. Opposite party's institution was completely closed down. No certificate was issued to the complainant. On going through the Exts. P1 to P7, the said course was seen conducted by opposite parties 1, 2 and 4. No material on record to show that 3rd opposite party had conducted the said course. Submission by the 3rd opposite party is that complainant had unnecessarily made 3rd opposite party as a party in the complaint and complainant never purchased any goods or services for consideration from the 3rd opposite party. Further submitted by 3rd opposite party that pursuant to an advertisement by Wintech Computers inviting quotations for providing space and infrastructure for running their computer education centre at Thiruvananthapuram city, 3rd opposite party company offered to let out space admeasuring to 1577 sq. ft and other infrastructure on the third floor of Mullassery Towers at the rate of Rs. 71179 per month for a period of six months commencing from 15.05.2000 to 14.11.2000. Since opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 failed to make prompt payment of the rental space and infrastructure, 3rd opposite party proceeded against opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 and proceedings are pending against them in various courts. 3rd opposite party filed affidavit by way of evidence substantiating the pleadings in its version. Complainant never furnished any documents showing the involvement of the 3rd opposite party in the running and management of education centre run by the other opposite parties. In the light of the pleadings in the version and affidavit by way of evidence filed by 3rd opposite party and non-production of any documents showing the nexus of 3rd opposite party with other opposite parties and the dealings of the complainant with the 3rd opposite party, we are of the considered opinion that the 3rd opposite party is unnecessarily arrayed into this complaint and the complaint is bad for misjoinder of unnecessary party. 3rd opposite party is exonerated from any liability. Since other opposite parties 1,2 and 4 remained exparte the affidavit of the complainant by way of evidence remains uncontroverted. On going through the complaint, affidavit, Exts. P1 to P7 and hearing of the arguments of the complainant we have come to the conclusion that complainant has succeeded in establishing the complaint against opposite parties 1, 2 and 4. The actions of opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 would amount to deficiency in service. <br /> In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 shall jointly and severally refund an amount of Rs. 8000/- to the complainant. Opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 shall pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- towards compensation to the complainant and Rs. 1000/- towards costs. 3rd opposite party is exonerated from any liability to the complainant. The said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 12% if not paid within two months from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th July 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 427/2001<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Photocopy of the advertisement which appeared in “The Hindu” daily newspaper. <br /> <br /> P2 - Photocopy of letter dated 25.07.2000 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. <br /> <br /> P3 - Photocopy of receipt No. 191 dated 30.08.2000 for Rs. 1000/- issued to the complainant by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> P4 - Photocopy of receipt No. 205 dated 07.09.2000 for Rs. 3000/- issued to the complainant by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> P5 - Photocopy of receipt No. 234 dated 12.10.2000 for Rs. 4000/- issued to the complainant by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> P6 - Photocopy of invoice No. 082 dated 30.08.2000 issued <br /> by the opposite party to the complainant. <br /> <br /> P7 - Photocopy of identity card issued by the opposite party to the complainant. <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT