MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER
This Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the OP Nos. 4 & 5 assailing the judgment and order dated 10.4.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur, in Complaint Case No. 66/2013, directing the OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 being the franchisees and the OP Nos. 4 & 5 being the franchisers to pay to the Respondent No. 1/Complainant Rs. 13,500/- by cheques within 30 days from the date of the order and further Rs. 6,000/- as compensation, out of which the Respondent No. 1/Complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 1,000/- with the ‘State Consumer Welfare Fund’ within 7 days from the date of receipt of the cheques. Direction was also given to the OPs to deposit the said cheques with the Ld. District Forum within the said period.
The brief facts of the case, are that the Respondent No. 1/Complainant took admission on 22.6.2011 in M/s. Choudhury Telecom, the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4/OP Nos. 1,2 & 3 being the franchisees of M/s. Lalani Computer Academy, the Appellants/OP Nos. 4 & 5 being the franchisers, for a computer course of 12 months’ duration and paid to the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 Rs. 300/- as Admission Fee and Rs. 13,200/- as Course Fee. But after classes of 10 months the course was closed. As a result of such closure of the course prematurely, the Respondent No. 1/Complainant did not get ‘Placement Commitment Letter’, ‘Mark Sheet’ and ‘Certificate’ of the examination as assured by the OPs as averred in the Petition of Complaint. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1/Complainant attempted to contact the OPs, but to no avail. Then the Complainant moved the Complaint concerned before the Ld. District Forum which passed the order in the aforesaid manner. Aggrieved by such order the OP Nos. 4 & 5 have preferred the instant Appeal.
The Ld. Advocate for the Appellants submits that the Respondent No. 1/ Complainant carried all the activities, starting from admission, payment of fees, etc. with the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4, who were the franchisee of the Appellants, being the franchisers, as per Franchisee-Agreement dated 8.6.2011 executed between the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 and the Appellants.
The Ld. Advocate adds that the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 having violated the terms and conditions of the said Franchisee-Agreement, such as, default in payment of royalty, the said Franchisee-Agreement was discontinued with effect from 5.5.2012, vide letter dated 5.5.2012.
The Ld. Advocate continues that as per the terms and conditions at Clause 10 of the said Franchisee-Agreement only the franchisees, i.e. the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4/OP Nos. 1,2&3, are solely responsible for all legal consequences including refund, damages and compensation in respect of the computer course in question.
The Ld. Advocate also submits that in view of the aforesaid fact, the Ld. District Forum erred in law in imposing liability, for lapses on the part of the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4, upon the Appellants, which are exempted from liability whatsoever as per the terms and conditions at Clause 10 of the Franchisee-Agreement as referred to herein.
The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant Appeal may be allowed, the impugned judgment and order be set aside to the extent of liability against the Appellants.
None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 despite due service of notices as evident from the order No. 6 dated 8.9.2015 of this Commission.
The Respondent No. 1/Complainant appearing in person submits that the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 along with the Appellants have failed to render their services, such as, ‘Placement Commitment Letter’, ‘Mark Sheet’, ‘Certificate’ of the examination, as assured at the time of admission in the computer course in question and thereby committed deficiency in services on their part and unfair trade practice, which resulted in his financial loss, mental agony and harassment.
The Respondent No. 1/Complainant finally submits that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant Appeal may be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order be affirmed.
We have heard both the sides appearing, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.
The materials on records reveal that the computer course concerned, in which the Respondent No. 1/Complainant got admission, was closed for breach of the terms and conditions of the Franchisee-Agreement executed between the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 and the Appellants without providing to the Respondent No. 1/Complainant services as assured by the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 at the time of admission of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant.
Clause 10 of the Franchisee-Agreement dated 8.6.2011, as available on records, demonstrates that the franchisee alone, i.e. the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4, will be responsible for any claim or refund for damages or compensation by the student, as the Respondent No. 1/Complainant herein, and that ‘the franchiser shall have nothing to do with them’, thereby implying that the franchiser cannot be held liable for any consequence resultant from the closure of the computer course in question.
The aforesaid facts, evidence on records and the submissions lead to the conclusion that for the deficiency in providing services to the Respondent No. 1/ Complainant, as arisen in the Complaint Case concerned, the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4/OP Nos. 1,2 & 3-franchisees alone are liable and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves modifications.
Accordingly, the instant Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order is set aside to the extent of Appellants/OPs-franchisers, and the Respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4/OP Nos. 1,2 & 3-franchisees are directed to pay to the Respondent No. 1/Complainant Rs. 10,000/- for the financial loss and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. The remaining directions in the impugned judgment and order are hereby set aside.
