IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2020
Present: Sri. Manulal.V.S, President
Smt..Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
CC No. 59/19(Filed on 30/4/19)
Complainant : Roy Joseph,
Idakkari,
Mariyathuruthu PO, Kottayam.
Vs
Opposite parties : The Manager,
Aspire Institute of Management Studies,
4th Floor, Cirils Tower,
Logos Junction, Kottayam.
(Adv. John Zachariah)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant was a teacher at Hydrabad. While he was working at hydrabad, he was compelled to return to his native place due to heart attack sustained to him. On 25-07-2018, Roja Roy and Roshna Roy who are the daughters of the complainant joined in the course of Diploma in Airport Ground Handling and travel management. At the time of the admission, Roja Roy and roshna Roy had paid 11,000 each towards admission fees of the respective students. Thereafter they paid Rs. 15,000/- each in the account of the admission fees of the said Roja Roy and Roshna Roy. At the time of the admission, the opposite party assured that the fees would have to be paid as installment due to the reason that the complainant is a heart patient. The daughters of the complainant have attended the course continuously for two months. When the class restarted after the flood, the opposite party demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs as the balance tuition fee. They further informed to the students that they would not provide the uniform for them if the students fail to make the payment. When the complainant approached the several banks for availing education loan it was came to his knowledge that the opposite party institute has no valid affiliation from the authorities and the banks would not sanction education loan for one-year diploma course. The complainant further alleges that the fee structure of daughters for the same course was different as Rs. 1, 30,000/- for one and Rs. 1, 51,650/- for another. The admission fee was different from the fees structure shown in the admission fee structure. The method of the education was also different from the one which was told at the time of the admission. Though the opposite party assured at the time of the admission that the internship would be conduct at Hydrabad, it was conducted at Kozhikkodu. The opposite party levied Rs. 5,500/- for the internship. Though the opposite party assured that all the student would be sent to Bangalore for the placement, they sent only 3 students to Bangalore. The opposite party took back the uniform after it was handed over to the daughters of the complainant. Due to humiliation and insult, the daughters of the complainant discontinued her studies. The above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and there by caused huge financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.
Upon notice from the forum opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed the version as follows:
Opposite party institute is the authorized training center for management studies in the field of aviation under the Bharath Sevak Samaj, which is a national Development Agency is promoted by Govt. of India. The daughters of the complainant took admission for Airport management diploma Course after knowing fully well about the course and it’s fees structure. Te complainant or his daughters never requested for any kind of fees reduction. The admission fee is Rs. 25,960/- including GST and the complainant has paid only 9,500/-. However, they were allowed to attend the classes. From the very beginning, the complainant’s daughters were not interested in attending the classes, as they were not very regular. They attended the classes continuously till December 2018. After that, in spite of repeated request, they did not attend the classes. Opposite party never assured placements to the students but assured assistance and coaching. For placement, the students have to attend and complete the course successfully. Opposite parry provided installment facilities to the students. Opposite party never demanded Rs. 1, 00,000/- for giving uniform within one month. Opposite party never offered loan facility for the students. Affiliation certificate given to the complainant is genuine. As per the information of the opposite party, the complainant who is jobless, living in a rental house and has nothing to give as collateral security and so the banks rejected the loan application. The course fee is only Rs. 1, 30,500/- and with GST of 18%, it comes to Rs. 1, 53,990/-. After completing the course, opposite party arranged training for the students in Airports in south India. Opposite party does not collect any additional payments for that. In the fees receipt it is clearly stated that there is no placement guarantee. Airline companies conduct the interviews as and when they require staff and the opposite party did not ever offered interview at Bangalore airport in every two months.
Grooming faculty only took the classes. Uniform was stitched for all the students of the batch as per their measurement and the complainant’s daughter even tried their uniform, but after that, they did not come to collect the uniforms. Opposite party has suffered a financial loss of R. 13,500/- for the uniform. The minimum qualification to join the course is +2. On admission, they agreed to produce +2 certificates, but in spite of repeated request, the students did not produce the same. The complaint is immature as it is filed in April 2019 and the course in which the students joined has finished only in June 2019. The complainant did not pay. Rs. 53,000/- as fees. During the several mediation attempts the opposite party agreed to coach the daughters of the complainant without any further payment of fees, the complainant is not amenable for the same. Since the complainant’s daughters left the course after 5 months, opposite party could not take new admission to fill the vacancies occurred in the batch, which caused a financial loss of Rs. 2, 58, 980 which is pending fees for the classes they attended for 5 months and 50,000/- including the cost of uniforms, establishment charges, and study materials. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1 to A4 from the side of the complainant. One Jewel George who is the manger of the opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exhibits B1 to B7 were marked.
On evaluation of the complaint ,version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party?
- If so what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider the point number 1 to 3 together
There is no dispute on the fact that Roja Roy and Roshna Roy who are the daughters of the complainant joined in the course of Diploma in Airport Ground Handling and travel management in the first opposite party institute. Exhibit A3 is the series of the course fee receipts of the said Roja roy and Roshna Roy. The complainant pleaded that the fee structure of daughters for the same course is different as Rs. 1, 30,000/- and Rs. 1, 51,650/- for another. Exhibit A2 is the fees structure for the course of Diploma in Airport Ground Handling and travel management and A2 (a) is the fees structure for the course of Diploma in airport Ground Service and Travel Management. Complainant further alleged that the first opposite party institute has no valid affiliation and the bank has refused to sanction the education loan. But the complainant did not adduce any evidence to show that the banks refused sanction the loan on the ground that the first opposite party has no valid affiliation as claimed by the first opposite party. On the other hand the first opposite party pleaded that it is an authorized training center for management studies in the field of aviation under the Bharath Sevak Samaj, which is a national Development Agency promoted by Govt. of India. Exhibit A1 and B1 is the certificate of authorization issued by the Bharth Sevak Samaj. The complainant further deposed in the affidavit that though the opposite party offered installment facility for remitting the fees and training at Bangalore and placement for the students they did not adhere their promise. On the other hand the opposite party deposed that they provided the installment facility to Roja Roy and Roshna Roy. It is evident from Exhibits A1 series the opposite parties provided installment facility for the payment of fees. According to the opposite party the daughters of the complainant were irregular in classes and they discontinued the studies after December 2018. Though the complainant pleaded that during December 2018 the opposite party has demanded the payment of balance fees in one installment and denied the uniform to his daughters, he did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his contention. The complainant further alleges that the internship was conducted at Kozhikkodu in contrary to the assurance given at the time of the admission that the internship would be conducted at Bangalore. The complainant pleaded that the said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and he is entitled for the compensation under the consumer protection act.
In Manu Solanki v. Vinayak Mission University,2020 SCC On Line, decided on 20-01-2020 the Hon’ble National consumer disputes Redressal Commission has held
"37. The following legal issues arise from the submissions made by the rival parties and the afore noted decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
Would any defects/ deficiency/ unfair trade practice indulged by the Educational Institutions post admission, which does not fall within the 'course of imparting knowledge' till the degree is conferred, falls within the ambit of the definition of Education?
If we apply the definition of Education, imparting knowledge for full potential, will that criterion apply to the admission stage, when the foundation for admission itself is deficient?
Would preferential activities for extracurricular activities, which do not have a direct nexus with admission fees, syllabus etc. be defined as Core Education? For Example if students go for a picnic and a mishap happens, does it fall within the definition of deficiency of service and is it part of Core Education? Do educational tours fall within the ambit of the definition of 'Education'.
Another example, if a school has a swimming pool and students of that institution drown on account of some deficiency or negligence of the authorities, would swimming in the school campus fall within the ambit of Core Education? Does maintaining a swimming pool and teaching swimming be considered as a part of Core Education?
Does defect/ deficiency in service of any boarding/ hostel facilities rendered fall within the umbrella of 'Education'?
Do coaching centers/ institutions fall within the ambit of the Definition of 'Educational Institutions'.
Do institutions involved in vocational training like, nursing, designing etc. strictly fall within the definition of 'Educational Institutions'.
“50. The main purpose and objective of NCVET is to recognize and regulate and assess the skill related service regulators. It is clarified that even if there is any defect/deficiency/unfair trade practice in the services offered by private bodies in offering these courses and are not regulated and do not confer any Degree or Diploma recognized by any Approved Authority do fall within the ambit of definition of 'Educational Institutions' and hence the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the same.
51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. "
11. From the averments made in the Complaint we find that the opposite party is imparting Education to the students and the Complainant’s daughters took admission in Diploma in Airport Ground Handling and travel management in the first opposite party institute.. The Principles laid down by the Hon;ble Nationa Consumer Disputes Redressal commission in the case of Manu Solanki (Supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case with which we are bound to follow and therefore it is held that the first opposite party does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. In view of the foregoing discussions, the Complaint filed by the Complainant stands dismissed as not maintainable.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 10th day of August 2020
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt..Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
A1-Copy of affiliation certificate
A2-Series of copy of fee structure
A3-Series of course fee receipt(6 nos.)
A4- copy of certificate
A4(a)Copy of medicine list
A4(b)copy of coronary angiogram report
A4©copy of discharge summary.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
B1-Affilation certificate
B2-Copy of Registration certificate dt 15/2/18
B3-Copy of letter
B4-Copy of certificate & mark list
B5-Copy of payment structure
B6-Copy of offer letter and series of demand draft issued by the Vandiperiyar
branch of the union bank and Canara bank Kottayam.(5 nos.)
B7-Copy of goods and services tax payment receipt
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
