National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Director L.B.S. Centre For Science And ... vs Vinod Kumar And Ors. on 31 May, 2001
ORDER
C.L. Chaudhry, J. Member
1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.1.1997 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Case No. 300 to 310 of 1996. The facts leading to the controversy may be briefly stated as under:
The Complainant joined LBS Sub-Centre for DCA Course which is a branch of the LBS Centre for Science and Technology.
2. All the Complainants paid Rs. 2,500/- each as the first instalment for the course with a duration of one year. The prospectus was issued by the Opposite Party wherein it was stated that on completion of the course, the students could appear for DOEACC 'O' level examination. The case of the Complainants was that they were attracted by the said clause and in the belief that on completion of DCA course, they could write DOEACC 'O' level examination. They joined the course at Alappuzha. However, a notice was published by the opposite Parties on 1.1.1995 declaring that the students who would complete the DCA course were not eligible for DOEACC 'O' level examination. The case set up by the Complainant was that the opposite party had cheated them by misrepresenting that they would be able to appear 'O' level examination after passing DCA course. They alleged that they had lost one valuable year. In these premises, the Complainants prayed for refund of fee paid with interest and compensation.
3. On behalf of the Opposite Party it was contended that the Complainants were not entitled to any relief as the matter did not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It was also stated that the LBS Centre for Science and Technology, Thiruananthapuram was established by the Govt. of Kerala under Sec. 12 of 1995 as a charitable society and it was having a governing body of 16 persons nominated by the Government of Kerala. The centre was absolutely controlled and managed by the Government of Kerala and the course conducted by them is DCA course and not 'O' level course. No misrepresentation was made by the Centre. The examination for DCA was conducted by the LBS Centre for Science and Technology in the first week of January. 'O' level examination was conducted by the Computer Society of India twice a year at major metropolitan cities and the LBS Centre had been successfully conducting the DCA course since 1991-92; 92-93; 93-94 and 94-95 batches. The Department of Electronics is the implementing agency of 'O' level computer course. It is a Central Government organisation and LBS Centre for Science and Technology is a State Government organisation. The LBS centre had the impression that a Government agency need not have accreditation to conduct 'O' level course. The DOE/Computer Society of India admitted students of LBS Centre for 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 batch for 'O' level examination. The 1991-92 batch and 1992-93 batch students of LBS Centre appeared for 'O' level examination on 11th and 12th June, 1994. But, their results were withheld due to the reason that the LBS Centre for Science and Technology had no accreditation. The Opposite Parties received the information only in December, 1994. The prospectus for admission to DCA course for 1994-95 was prepared in June, 1994. When this problem arose, the Opposite Parties informed the 1994-95 batch students that the DCA students could not write 'O' Level examination in the category of students from accredited institutes.
4. The District Forum took the view that the contention raised by the Opposite Party that since the institute was a Government institute, they were under the impression that they were required no accreditation, was not correct. The District Forum also found that the Complainant were consumers and by inserting Clause 8 in prospectus, the Opposite Parties committed unfair trade practice and in that view of the matter, the District Forum passed an order directing the Opposite Parties to refund Rs. 2,500/-, the first instalment paid by the Complainants. The District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the students and Rs. 350/- was also awarded by way of costs.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party approached the State Commission by way of appeal. The State Commission dismissed the appeal with the observations that there was no basis for the plea of the Opposite Parties that being Government institute, they thought that accreditation was not necessary and the students of the Opposite Parties institute could appear for 'O' level examination. Even according to the Opposite Party it was only a belief entertained by it and there was nothing to show that no accreditation was necessary for the students in the Government institute. In the circumstances, it was difficult to hold that the finding recorded by the District Forum that the statement in the prospectus that the students would be able to appear for 'O' level examination was a misrepresentation, was wrong. It was further observed that the institute is conducting course by receiving consideration and therefore come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Regarding compensation, the observation of the State Commission was that the students lost one valuable year. The Complainants joined the course in the hope that they could appear for 'O' level examination and finding that it was not possible, they withdrew from the course after undertaking the course for six months. The compensation awarded by the District Forum could not be said to be on the higher side.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Opposite Party has filed this revision petition.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that previously the students of the Petitioner Society were being admitted for 'O' level examination. The letter sent by the Computer Society of India dated 19th April, 1992 clearly proved that the Computer Society of India accepted the LBS Centre for Science and Technology as their accredited institute.
8. We are unable to accept this contention. Nothing has been brought on record by the Petitioner to show why the students from the Petitioner Society were not being allowed to appear in the 'O' level examination. It was further contended that the Computer Society of India had no right to contended that the LBS Centre for Science and Technology had no accreditation. We do not accept this contention also. It is for the Petitioner to take up the case with the Computer Society of India and the students cannot be blamed for it. Relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa & Ors. reported as AIR 1978 SC 548, this Commission in the case of Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. Vs. Vishwa Buddha Parishad & Ors. reported as 2000 CTJ 801 has taken the view that imparting of education for consideration is a service. In the prospectus, the students were given the belief that those completing the course from the Petitioner Centre would be eligible for 'O' level examination. This representation turned out to be untrue. Students have lost one year of their valuable career. It is a case of clear deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner. We find no legal infirmity in the reasonings recorded by the State Commission.
9. It was next contended that the compensation awarded by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission was on the higher side. This contention is also devoid of merit. The Opposite Party has been directed to refund the amount that the Complainants had paid and only Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to them by way of compensation. This, in our view, is a very reasonable and fair compensation and we are not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission which we find is very rational. The Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.