KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL Nos. 305/2016, 488/2016 and 489/2016

COMMON JUDGMENT  DATED: 13.12.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 139/2012 of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPEAL No. 305/2016

APPELLANT:

Shabeeh U.V., Manager, Computech, Gi. TeC Computer Education, Brothers Trade Centre, Parappanangadi Road, Tanur, Malappuram-676 302.

(By Adv. K.T. Sidhiq)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Dhanya T., D/o Unni Thuppayil, Olapeedika, Tanur, Malappuram-676 302.

2. G-TeC Computer Education, Administration Office : House of G. TeC, Calicut-2, Kozhikode.

(By Adv. Ratheesh Kumar V.S. for R2)

APPEAL No. 488/2016

APPELLANT:

G-TEC Computer Education, Administration Office : House of G. TeC, Kozhikode-2 represented by its Chairman and Managing Director Meharoof I Manalody.

 (By Adv.Ratheesh Kumar V.S.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Dhanya T., D/o Unni Thuppayil, Olapeedika, Tanur, Malappuram-676 302.

2. Shabeeh U.V., Manager, Gi. TeC Computer Education, Brothers Trade Centre, Parappanangadi Road, Tanur, Malappuram-676 302.

(By Adv. K.T. Sidhiq for R2)

APPEAL No. 489/2016

APPELLANT:

G-TEC Computer Education, Administration Office : House of G. TeC, Kallai Road, Kozhikode-2 represented by its Chairman and Managing Director Meharoof I Manalody.

 (By Adv.Ratheesh Kumar V.S.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Jency V., D/o Sreedharan, Chiramangalam, Parappanangadi Amsom, Thirurangadi Taluk, P.O. Neduva, Malappuram-676 303.

2. Preesha, Manager, Gi. TeC Computer Education, KRN Shopping Mall, Near Bus Stand, Chemmad, Malappuram-676 306.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant in Appeal No. 488/2016 is the 2^nd opposite party and the appellant in Appeal No. 305/2016 is the 1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 139/2012 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short ‘the District Commission’).  The appellant in Appeal No. 489/2016 is the 2^nd opposite party in C.C. No. 140/2012 on the files of the District Commission.

2.  Two students who joined for PGDCA course under the opposite parties had filed two different complaints, which were numbered as C.C. No. 139/2012 and C.C. No. 140/2012.  Since the allegations and the evidence in both the cases were almost similar, the District Commission passed a common order. 

3.  Since all the above appeals arise out of the common order, we are inclined to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment.

4.  In both the cases, the respective complainant joined the educational institution of the 1^st opposite party, who was the franchisee/manager of the 2^nd opposite party, for PGDCA course, believing that the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education would be issued to them after completing the course and passing the examination.  The complainant in C.C. No 139/2012 paid an amount of Rs. 5,250/- (Rupees Five Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) out of an amount of Rs. 6,500/- fixed as fees for the whole one year course.  The complainant in C.C. No. 140/2012 paid altogether an amount of Rs. 5,458/- (Rupees Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Eight only).  It is alleged that the 1^st opposite party is the manager of the 2^nd opposite party.  However, at the fag end of the course, each of the complainants was compelled by the 1^st opposite party to sign a consent letter consenting to accept the certificate of Gi.Tec Computer Education instead of G.Tec Computer Education, at the end of the course.  The 1^st opposite party, in fact, cheated the complainants and the other students, in making them to believe that at the end of the course, the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education would be given.  This was done by the 1^st opposite party for monetary gain.  Since the 1^st opposite party was unable to give the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education, there was culpable deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  In the said circumstances, the complainants in both the cases alleged deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties in this regard. 

5.  The 1^st opposite party filed version in both the cases admitting that the 1^st opposite party was the franchisee of the 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party collected the fees for the purpose of issuing the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education, after completing PGDCA course in the institution of the 1^st opposite party.  However, since there was some dispute between the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties, the 2^nd opposite party was not prepared to issue the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party in this regard.  If at all there was any deficiency, the said deficiency was on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. 

6.  The 2^nd opposite party filed version in both the cases contending that the 2^nd opposite party is running G.Tec Computer Education and the institution of the 1^st opposite party is only a franchisee of the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party admitted that the complainants in both the cases joined for PGDCA course in the institution of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party also admitted about the receipt of the fees. The 2^nd opposite party would further contend that the complainants in both the cases are entitled to get PGDCA certificate on completion of the course and passing the concerned examination.  It was the duty of the 1^st opposite party to secure the certificates issued by G.Tec Computer Education after completion of the course and passing the concerned examination, since the franchisee agreement between the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties was existing at that time.  While the agreement between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties was in force, the 1^st opposite party changed the name of the institution from G.Tec Computer Education to Gi.Tec Computer Education.  The 2^nd opposite party is not responsible for the consequences of the untimely act of the 1^st opposite party.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. 

          7.  Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A5 series were marked for the complainant and DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exhibits B1 to B13 were marked for the opposite parties in CC. 139/2012.  In C.C. No. 140/2012, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked for the complainant and DW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked for the opposite parties.  After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,250/-(Rupees Five Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) to the complainant in C.C. No. 139/2012 and Rs. 5,458/- (Rupees Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Eight only) to the complainant in C.C. No. 140/2012.  The District Commission also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each as compensation for deficiency in service in both the cases.  The District Commission further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each as compensation for the loss of one year. The District Commission further directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each in both the cases.  Aggrieved by the said order, these appeals have been filed. 

8.  Heard. Perused the records.

9.  It is admitted by both the opposite parties that the complainant in both the cases joined the institution of the 1^st opposite party for PGDCA Course.  It is also not disputed that the 1^st opposite party was a franchisee of the 2^nd opposite party at the time when the complainants joined the institution of the 1^st opposite party.  It appears from Exhibit A1 to A6 in C.C. No. 139/2012 that the 1^st opposite party had collected the amount towards fees as per the said receipts.  Exhibits A1 to A5 in CC. 140/2012 would show the receipt of fees by the 1^st opposite party in connection with the admission of the complainant in that case.

 10.  It is not disputed that at the time of joining the institution, the complainants in both the cases were assured that the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education would be issued after completing the PGDCA course and passing the examination.  It is borne out from the records that after a few months of joining the institution by the complainants, there was some dispute between the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties.  It was contended by the complainant in both the cases that at the fag end of the course, each of the complainants was compelled by the 1^st opposite party to sign a consent letter consenting to accept the certificate of Gi.Tec Computer Education instead of G.Tec Computer Education at the end of the course. The complainants alleged that the said consent letters were obtained by fraud and that they never intended to give any such letter.  It was realised only at the fag end of the course that the 1^st opposite party would issue only the certificate of Gi.Tec.  However, the 1^st opposite party contended that the 1^st opposite party was prepared to issue certificate of Gi.Tec Computer Education, which the complainants were not prepared to accept.  The fact that the other students had accepted Gi.Tec Computer Education certificate cannot be a ground to hold that the complainants should have also consented to accept the Gi.Tec Computer Education certificate instead of G.Tec Computer Education certificate, which was agreed to be given at the time of joining the course.

11.  It is borne out from the records that the contention of the complainants that the complainants were made to believe that after completing the PGDCA course, the complainants would be given the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education, appears to be correct.  It is also not disputed that at the time when the complainants joined the institution of the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party was the franchisee of the 2^nd opposite party.  However, there was some dispute between them and in the said circumstances, the 1^st opposite party could issue only the certificate of Gi.Tec Computer Education.  By denying the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education, the study of the complainants was lost for about one year.  The fee paid by them was also lost.  The opposite parties should have issued the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education to the complainants, who had joined the institution of the 1^st opposite party at the time when the 1^st opposite party was a franchisee of the 2^nd opposite party. However, the complainants were informed at the fag end of the course that the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education could not be issued to the complainants due to some dispute between the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties. Since the 1^st opposite party was admittedly a franchisee of the 2^nd opposite party when the complainants joined the institution, both the opposite parties were responsible for issuing the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education to the complainants after completing the PGDCA.  From the materials on record, there can be no doubt that both the opposite parties are equally responsible for not having issued the certificate of G.Tec Computer Education.  In the said circumstances, we do not find any reason to hold that the finding of the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in both the above cases, cannot be correct.  In the said circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned.  We also do not find any reason to hold that the compensation and costs ordered by the District Commission in both the cases are excessive or disproportionate calling for interference by this Commission. 

In the result, these appeals stand dismissed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellant in each appeal shall be given to the 1^st respondent in the respective appeal, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb