Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/57

THE DIRECTOR, THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LOGISTICS - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARUN CHANDRAN - Opp.Party(s)

C.J JOY

20 May 2019

ORDER

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.57/2014, 58/2014

 JUDGMENT DATED: 20.05.2019

PRESENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN             :        PRESIDENT

 

 

SRI.RANJIT. R.                                                   :        MEMBER

 

APPEAL No. 57/2014

The Director,

Indian Institute of Logistics,

1^st Floor, Forbes Patvolic Building,

Indira Gandhi Road, Willington Island,                  :APPELLANT

Kochi-682 003

(By Adv: M/s C.J. Joy & Associates)

            Vs.

1. ArunChandran, Athira House

Manjummal P.O., Udyogamandal,                          

Ernakulam.

 

(By Adv: M/s Joseph & Parambil)

 

2. VELS University                                                  : RESPONDENTS

Velan Nagar, P.V. Vaithiyalingam Road,

Pallavaram, Chennai-600 117,

Tamil Nadu.

 

 

APPEAL NO. 58/2014

 

 

The Director,

Indian Institute of Logistics,

1^st Floor, Forbes Patvolic Building,

Indira Gandhi Road, Willington Island,                  :APPELLANT

Kochi-682 003

(By Adv: M/s C.J. Joy & Associates)

 

            Vs.

1. Clint Thomas,

Manimalatharppel House,

Ambayathode P.O., Kannur District

Pin-670 651.

(By Adv: M/s Joseph & Parambil)                           : RESPONDENTS

 

2. VELS University

Velan Nagar, P.V. Vaithiyalingam Road,

Pallavaram, Chennai-600 117,

Tamil Nadu.

JUDGMENT

 

HON’BLE  JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN, PRESIDENT

 

The common first opposite party in CC. No. 592/2010 and
CC. No.593/2010 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam has filed these appeals against the common order dated 21.12.2013 by which both the complaints have been allowed.  In both these appeals, the respective complainants are arrayed as the 1^st respondent, while the 2^nd respondent is the 2^nd opposite party in the complaints. 

 

          2.      The complaint was filed in the following circumstances.  The appellant herein is conducting a School of Logistics offering a number of courses givingassurance to the students that the courses were recognized by the UGC.  Accordingly, two persons, who are the respective respondents in these appeals joined the course of MBA (Logistics and Shipping Management) paying a total amount of Rs.2,60,000/-as the course fee.

     3. According to the respondents, they had joined the course, believing the assurances of the appellant that the course was recognized by the UGC, and that the same was affiliated to the VELS University, Chennai and the London School of Business Management.  They came to know that the course had no recognition as assured.  They therefore alleged gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and sought recovery of the amount paid by them, and also return of their Transfer Certificates and Conduct Certificates.  According to them, a total amount of Rs.5,03,250/- was due to each of them.  The 2^nd opposite party remained ex-parte.  The 1^stopposite party contested the complaint.  According to them, they had the necessary recognition of the VELS University, Chennai, who was their academic partner.  Therefore, there was no misrepresentation on their part, as alleged.  It was contented that the complainants were therefore not entitled to get any relief in the matter.  The Forum below took evidence on the above pleadings.  The complainants were examined as PW1 and PW2 and Exhibits A1 to A27 were marked on their side.  The appellant was examined as DW1 and Exhibits B1 to B22 were marked as documentary evidence on theirside.

 

          4.      The Forum below formulated four points for consideration of the matter.  It was found that though the VELS University was recognized as a deemed University, it had no authority to conduct any courses outside the state of Tamil Nadu.  Therefore, the Memorandum of the Understanding (MOU)between the University and the appellant herein was found to be invalid.  Since the appellant had no authority to conduct the course, an amount of Rs.50,000/- each as compensation and refund of the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- charged as fees, has been ordered.  It is aggrieved by the said order that this appeal is filed.

          5.      According to the Counsel for the appellant, since the 2^nd opposite party, the VELS University, Chennai is the academic partner of the appellant, it also ought to have been made liable for the amount ordered to be paid.  As the VELS University is a deemed University under the UGC, it is contended that the courses offered with the said University as academic partner was perfectly inorder.   The District Forum went wrong in placing reliance on the information obtained and produced by the complainants under the Right to Information Act, 2005, without giving an opportunity to the opposite party to rebut the same.   It is contended that the question as to whether a student is a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been referred to a larger Bench by the National Commission and therefore, it is necessary to await the said decision.

 

          6.      The Counsel for the first respondent draws our attention to Exhibit B1,in particular to the portion marked as Exbt. B1 (a), to point out that the appellant had projected the courses conducted by them as UGC recognized, in the brochure.  The said act has been found to be false in view of the information obtained under the Right to Information Act by the complainants.  The conclusion arrived at by the District Forum therefore is fully justified.  The Counsel also places reliance on the decision of the apex Court in Budhist Mission Dental College and Hospital Vs.BhupeshKhurana and others [(2009) 4 SCC 473] to contend that in similar circumstances the National Commission has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the colleges in the said case.  The said dictum appliesto the present case also.  Therefore, the Counsel seeks dismissal of the appeal.

 

              7.  We have gone through the common order of the District Forum as well as the records of the appeals.  We notice from Exhibit B1 Brochure published by the appellant that the course, Master of Business and Administration (MBA) (Logistic and Shipping) offered by them is described as “UGC recognized”.  According to the information obtained by the complainant under the Right to Information Act, the VELS University, Chennai has been recognized as a deemed University only in respect of its institutions specifically mentioned in Exbt. A27 reply. They are the VELS Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies (VISTAS), Pallavaram, Chennai, which comprises of the VELS College of Science, Chennai, VELS College of Pharmacy, Chennai and VELS college of Physiotherapy, Chennai.  It is also specified that, the UGC has not granted approval to the VELS Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies (Pallavaram, Chennai) to conduct courses outside the state. The above information clearly establishes that, the VELS University had no authority to conduct courses outside Chennai.  Nor had the appellant any such authority to conduct any course with it as an academic partner. The Memorandum of Understanding executed by the University with the appellant therefore has no legal validity as rightly held by the District Forum.  The Brochure published by the appellant claiming that its MBA was recognized by the UGC is false.  The complainants were persuaded to part with their money on the basis of said claim.  Their services were therefore grossly deficient in quality and conduct of the course was illegal.  The District Forum has therefore, granted compensation to the complainant and directed to refund the fees paid by them relying on the decision in Budhist Mission Dental College and Hospital (SUPRA) case.  We find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum warranting interference therewith in appeal.

 

          For the foregoing reasons, the appeals fail and are dismissed.

 

 

      SRI. JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

 

          SRI.RANJIT.R   :  MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                               

Val.