Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/432

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LOGISTICS - Complainant(s)

Versus

ALVIN JOSE MATHEW - Opp.Party(s)

CHANRAPRAVEEN R

24 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.432/15

JUDGMENT  DATED:24.10.2018

 

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                         : MEMBER

 

Indian Institute of Logistics,

(A Vocational Training Centre),

C/o Forbes Patvok Building, 1^st floor,

Indira Gandhi Road, Willington Island,

Kochi-682 003.                                                                    : APPELLANT

R/by its Director Capt. Jaya Pushpakumar Vadlamannati,

H-6/3, Habib Complex, Jupiter Campus,

Durgabai Desmukh Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Chandrapraveen)

 

            Vs.

 

Alvin Jose Mathew,

S/o Jolly Joseph,

R/at Kalayil House, Perumannor P.O,                                       : RESPONDENT

Nellimattam, Kothamangalam-686 693.

 

JUDGMENT 

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

          Appeal filed by the opposite party in C.C.No.512/13 on the file of the C.D.R.F, Ernakulam challenging the Order of the Forum holding that the complainant is entitled to realize Rs.10,000/- each as refund and cost with Rs.25,000/- as compensation from the opposite party.  Complainant was also awarded 12% interest p.a, a sum of Rs.10,000/- collected from him towards fees, till realization.  The Forum below had also issued some directions to the opposite party to discontinue the unfair trade practice of representing that they are partner of an institution viz. the Bharathiar University and that they are having requisite legal authority to conduct and award degrees in respect of MBA (Shipping and Logistics) as claimed. Copy of the order was ordered to be forwarded to City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam for the purpose of making a thorough enquiry with regard to the authority, legality, regularity, propriety and credibility of the opposite party’s Institution and to submit preliminary report whether a criminal prosecution has to be initiated against under law.

2.      Aggrieved by the Order passed by the lower forum the opposite party has filed this appeal.

3.      The case of complainant in brief was that he had joined for a course by name MBA (Shipping and Logistics) with the opposite party styled as “Indian Institute of Logistics (Vocational Training Centre). Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as admission fees.   Representation was made that opposite party was affiliated to AICTI and the course he joined was recognized by that authority.  However, after joining the course, he came to know that the institution is not affiliated and the course was not having approval of AICTE, and, he thereupon requested for refund of admission fee collected discontinuing his studies.  On refusal to refund fees complaint was filed claiming a sum of Rs.10,000/- paid towards admission fee with compensation of Rs.15,000/-.

4.      Opposite party resisted the claim of complainant contending that no representation was made that the course to which the complainant had joined was affiliated to AICTE.  According to the opposite party amount of Rs. 10,000/- was charged towards registration fee for admission to keep out applicants who are not serious and not really interested to join the course. Many of the students who joined for the same course with the opposite party had obtained education loan from various nationalized banks and the case of complainant for failure to get loan is baseless.  Complaint was meritless according to opposite party.

5.      The evidence in the case consisted of the testimony complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 on his side, and Exbts. B1 to B32 for the opposite party.  Appreciating the materials produced the lower forum accepting the case of complainant and repelling the contentions of opposite party, allowed the complaint with orders and terms as indicated earlier. 

6.      Aggrieved by Order and directions issued, opposite party has preferred this appeal.

7.      We heard the counsel on both sides and perused the records. 

8.      According to the complainant he joined the course MBA (Shipping and Logistics) with the opposite party styled as “Indian Institute of Logistics (Vocational Training Centre) believing the representations made that the course was affiliated with AICTE.  Complainant was made to believe that the course had affiliation and approval of AICTE. But later he came to know that the opposite party institution does not come under the purview of AICTE. All masters degree programmes in all technical subjects are specifically excluded from the purview of AICTE and it is applicable only for starting new technical institutions, and for Introduction of courses and approval of intake capacity of students at the diploma and degree level only.  After scrutiny of materials produced the lower Forum arrived at the conclusion that the course conducted by the opposite party to which the complainant joined the institution of opposite party was not recognized by any reputed authority or university.  It also held that the opposite party has failed to prove that it is an educational institution authorized in India for awarding degree of MBA (Shipping and Logistics), the course to which complainant was admitted.

9.      The learned Counsel for appellant argued that except a few students, less than 3, all the other students who joined in the same course had completed their studies availing educational loans from banks.  The question is not whether other students have completed their educational course availing loan to get degree from the opposite party but only whether opposite party is an authority recognized by any University or by  the Government to conduct such course and also whether the degree issued by them is recognized by the Government and University.  No evidence was placed by opposite party to show that they were authorized to conduct and give degree in MBA (Shipping and Logistics).  The fact that the complainant joined the above course paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- is not disputed by the opposite party, but it is contended that the amount was collected towards registration of the course.  That has no merit.  The materials produced by the opposite party would show that they conducted some courses and imparted   technical assistance in association with some agencies including Bharatiar University.  As stated earlier the course conducted by them, MBA ((Shipping and Logistics) to which complaint joined believing that it was recognized and that opposite party was authorized to conduct such course and confer degree, is recognized by Government has not been proved by opposite party.  When that be so, so certainly, it showed deficiency in service on their part and they are liable to refund the sum collected with compensation, as ordered by the lower Forum.  There is no merit in the appeal.

10.    We direct the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.10,000/- with 12% interest p.a from the date of payment till date of realization with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  However, the directions issued by the Forum below to the opposite party to discontinue the unfair trade practice over conducting of MBA (Shipping and Logistics) course and awarding degree for such course representing that it is a partner of Bharatiar University, and also to the City Police Commissioner to conduct an enquiry and submit preliminary report, cannot be approved and sustained.    Direction was issued to the opposite party to discontinue unfair trade practice without taking note that no case of unfair trade practice was imputed by the complainant in his complaint and also that the opposite party was not called upon to answer such imputation by the Forum during the course of proceedings. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, even assuming that the course conducted by the opposite party in MBA (Shipping and Logistics) has no recognition, that by itself would not amount to unfair trade practice.  In the given facts and evidence produced directions issued by the Forum invoking the authority under Section 14 (f) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to opposite party to discontinue the course representing as a partner of Bharatiar University and to the City Police Commissioner to conduct an enquiry and preliminary reports cannot be sustained and we vacate them. 

11.    Except to vacating of the directions issued to opposite party and City Police Commissioner, order of the Forum is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

12.    Sum deposited by the appellant, for entertaining it appeal shall be released to the complainant on his application, adjusting it in the sum payable towards refund of fees collected and compensation and cost awarded with interest.  After such adjustment, further sum, if any due is realisable in execution proceedings if not satisfied by payment by appellant/opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

Both parties are directed to suffer their cost.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

 

 

RANJIT. R  : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

VL.