BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    06^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Karthik.K.M

S/o Manjunath.K.S

Aged about 22 years

R/at No.129,

Siddivinayaka Nilaya, Manjunatha Nagar, Kyathasandra Post, Tumakuru-572104

By Adv.Sri.P.Nagaraju

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

Gems B School

The Royal Cottage,

Bengaluru Palace, Vasanthnagar,

Bengaluru-52.

Rep. by its Chairman Dr.M.I.M.Nehruzil

By Adv.Sri.Chidanand Kulkarni

ORDER

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to refund the fee amount of Rs.66,000/- with interest at 18% p.a; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to pay cost of Rs.10,000/-

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

The Complainant submits that, he joined 2 years MBA course in OP college by paying 1^st installment tuition fee of Rs.66,000/- on 19.08.14. The courses will be commencing from 21.09.14. After payment of the tuition fee, the Complainant came to know that, the OP placement services as well as other facilities were not as advertised by the OP and thereby intimated his dissatisfaction and requested for refund of the paid amount on 08.09.14. In the meanwhile, the Complainant got an opportunity to do M.Tech in the CIT college, Gubbi and the said fact brought to the notice of OP. But OP not refunded the amount. Due to harassment and non-refunding of fee amount, the Complainant has lost an opportunity of doing M.Tech. The Complainant has not attended even a single class at the OP college. In this context, he issued letter on 20.09.14 requesting for refund of the entire fee amount as per the guidelines of UGC dtd.22.06.11 after deducting processing fee of Rs.1,000/-. But the OP given untenable reply on 23.09.14. The Complainant again issued legal notice dtd.06.11.14, to which also OP not responded. Hence this complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, OP did appear and filed version.  OP in its version submits that, the Complainant has not mentioned about the ‘job orientation classes’ which are the classes conducted as part of the course to train the students for a ‘job placement’ by training in communication skills, interview handling skills, personality enrichment etc., The Complainant has attended only 8 ‘job orientation classes’ out of a total of 17 classes commencing from 18.08.14 to 09.09.14 which shows the irregular attendance of the Complainant and also it can be observed that the Complainant lacks the interest and drive required of a student for such a professional course. OP further submits that, it is well known for its placement efficiencies of students who join the course with hopes of a job and the OP did send the Complainant for first rounds of interviews with 6 companies on 27.08.14 during campus placement drive with the companies IBM, Wipro, Wenger & Watson, Captive power solutions etc., which he has admittedly confirmed through his email dtd.15.09.14. A few companies who conducted the interviews have confirmed the participation of the Complainant in their communications to the OP. In fact, the student’s batch bearing no.GB0104 to which the Complainant belongs out of 71 students, 57 have been selected by the companies who conducted the said interviews. Despite attending the said interviews and failing to get selected due to lack of interest and drive required of a student for such a professional job, the Complainant has chosen to blame the OP for his failure to achieve success in the placement interviews and tests and has expressed his dissatisfaction and requested the OP to refund the fees vide email dtd.08.09.14 to which OP has duly refused. OP further submits that, the Complainant got an opportunity to do M.Tech, the subjects of which are not at all in any way connected with the subjects taught in MBA course and which also proves that the Complainant has a tendency to keep shifting his choice of subjects for study without any determination to achieve success in the endeavor that he has undertaken. OP further submits that, it is not affiliated to the UGC and as per the definition under Clause.3 of UGC Act, 1956, OP is neither an university nor an institution deemed to be university and therefore the guidelines dtd.22.06.11 of UGC are not applicable to it any manner by due operation of law. Hence on these grounds and other grounds OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents.  Both filed written arguments. Heard. We have gone through the available materials on record.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?

2. What order?

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2:- As per final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1: We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by OP.  The undisputed facts which reveal from the pleadings of the parties go to show that, OP is an educational institute and conducting various courses and placement services including the course of 2 years MBA. The Complainant joined 2 years MBA course in OP establishment and paid first installment tuition fee of Rs.66,000/- by way of cash to the OP on 19.08.14. This fact is not denied by the OP. According to the case of the Complainant, OP intimated on 19.08.14 that the courses will be commencing from 21.09.14. After payment of the tuition fee, the Complainant came to know that the placement services as well as other facilities were not as advertised by OP. Hence, being disappointed, requested the OP to refund the fees.

8. The sole contention taken by OP is that, the Complainant is not a consumer comes within the purview of Sec.2(1)(d) of CP Act and more over fee once paid it is not refundable. Hence prays for dismiss the complaint.

9. As to know, whether the Complainant is a consumer comes within the purview of Sec.2(1)(d) of CP Act, we placed reliance on the latest decision of Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2019 (2) CPR 396 (NC) in the case of  Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training and Anr. Vs. Aashima Jarial by referring the following decisions:

1. Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Others (2016) 8 SCC 286, para 7

2. FIIT JEE ltd., vs. Dr.Minathi Rath, 2012 (1) CPJ 194 (NC), (para 12)

3. Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159

4. P.T.Koshy & Anr vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., Civil Appeal No.22532/2012 decided on 09.08.12

5. Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 696

held that, when the fees are paid to the educational institution, the Complainant is ‘consumer’ and educational institution is ‘service provider’. In the instant case, OP role is nothing but service provider. Hence, it is needless to discuss in detail in respect of the issue of consumer. Hence, we record our findings stating that, Complainant is a consumer and OP is a service provider.

          10. In the instant case, the grievance of the Complainant is that, as advertised by the OP, the basic infrastructures are not up to the mark. Hence, he decided to quit. He also lost the chance of getting M.Tech course due to non-payment of fee amount. Considering these facts and also in the light of the decisions cited supra, we come to the conclusion that, when the placement services as well as other facilities were not provided as advertised by the OP, under such circumstances, the Complainant is legally entitled for refund of Rs.66,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. Further we are of the opinion that, the Complainant is not entitled for any of the compensation since nothing is proved as to how, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly we answered point No.1 partly in the affirmative.

  11. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part.

2. The OP is directed to refund the fees of Rs.66,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.66,000/- carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization.

3. With regard to the claim of compensation is negated.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 06^th day of November 2019)

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant dated.29.06.15

Sri.Karthik.K.M

Copies of Documents produced by the Complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP dated.22.07.15

Dr.Sri.M.I.M.Nehruzil, Dean    

Copies of Documents produced by OP

            MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT