State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri. D.Subramani vs Bangalore City College on 15 October, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/509/2010 ( Date of Filing : 04 Feb 2010 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District ) 1. Sri. D.Subramani S/o.Doraiswamy, Aged about 53 years Both are R/at No.138, Gandhi Nagar, Virupakshapuram Post, Vellur, Tamil Nadu, Now in Bangalore City 2. Miss. Amuthavalli, D/o. Doraiswamy, Aged about 24 years, Both are R/at No.138, Gandhi Nagar, Virupakshapuram Post, Vellur, Tamil Nadu, Now in Bangalore City , ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Bangalore City College No.160, Chellikere Main Road, Banasawadi, Outer Ring Road, Kalyan Nagar, Behind BTS Depot, Bangalore-560 043. All its Board of Directors. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 15 Oct 2024 Final Order / Judgement Date of Filing :04.02.2010 Date of Disposal :15.10.2024 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 15.10.2024 PRESENT Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R) Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER APPEAL No.509/2010 Mr D Subramani S/o Mr Doraiswamy Aged about 53 years Miss Amuthavalli D/o Doraiswamy Aged about 24 years Both are R/at No.138 Gandhi Nagar Virupakshapuram Post Vellur, Tamil Nadu Now in Bangalore City (By P.G.Ramesh and Association) Appellants
-Versus-
Bangalore City College No.160, Chellikere Main Road Banasawadi, Outer Ring Road Kalyan Nagar Behind BTS Depot Bangalore-560 043 All its Board of Directors Respondent (By Mr Babu ABEL, Advocate)
-: ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Complainants 1 and 2 aggrieved by the Order dated 15.10.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No.857/2008 on the file of IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (for short, the District Forum).
2. The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as the rank assigned to them by the District Forum.
3. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers and records of District Forum. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be:
Whether impugned order dated 15.10.2009 passed in CC No. 857/2008 does call any interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?
4. At the very outset, Commission to make mention of the fact found from Appeal records, at the first instance Compliant in question was decided on 30.06.2008 by DF directing the OP to refund Rs.80,000/- to the Complainant with interest at the rate of 15% p.a from 16.12.2005 till realisation and directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs. Having been aggrieved by this Order OP preferred an Appeal before the State Commission in Appeal No.2027/2008, wherein State Commission held - At the time of admission, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, ordered notice to the Respondent, since the Appellant/OP agreed to pay double the amount in the event of the Complainants producing the original certificates for having paid the fee and by recording such submission, in spite of service of notice, as the Respondents/ Complainants have not produced the original certificates for having paid the fee regarding admission to the course and in consideration of the defense taken by the OP held matter requires reconsideration by the District Forum and directed the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the Complainants thereby allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of District Forum passed in Consumer Complaint No.857/2008 dated 30.06.2008. After remand of the case, the District Forum ordered to dismiss the Complaint, directing the parties to the complaint to bear their own costs. It is this order is assailed in this Appeal contending that District Forum failed to appreciate the materials on record and failed to find out paper publication and college prospectus to arrive at a right conclusion and impugned order is liable to be set aside on various grounds, which they have stated in their Appeal Memo.
5. Let us examine the contents of the Complaint, in particular as found in Para 3 wherein second complainant and her father have stated OP institution and its Directors had very much knowledge that the second petitioner is not eligible for the said course, yet to extract money from them, have illegally permitted the second complainant to admit for 1st year D.Ed course. They have stated followed by advertisement and the prospectus of the institution induced to admit 2nd complainant for the D.Ed course. The complainants hail from Tamil Nadu State. In order to substantiate such allegations made against the OP institution, have placed prospectus of the institution wherein could see they have offered for D.Ed course for students and the basic requirement to get admission would be "Passed in PUC" and it is quite but natural for any students of such education to get admission to such institution. Herein the case, on the basis of this prospect, followed by paper advertisement second complainant was admitted to D.Ed course and OP institution with full knowledge that the candidate with such qualification is not eligible got her admitted to the said course goes without saying for the reasons best known to the Directors concerned. And if for any reasons they have got admitted an ineligible candidate to the said course, which came to the light of the management of the institution, could have resolved the issue by returning the fees collected from second Complainant. The complainants have placed some documents to shown that 1st complainant was admitted to the 1st year D.Ed course and in such circumstances when they have made request to refund could have been considered at their level.
It is to be noted herein that the Consumer Forum has to examine the materials summarily. The father and daughter who hail from Tamil Nadu State have raised consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with an elaborate making statement in their complaint against OP college that they believed the paper advertisement and college prospectus have approached OP Institution seeking admission for D.Ed course for the first year course and have paid Rs.80,000/-. In order to substantiate such statement they have placed prospectus issued by Institution wherein could see courses offered, duration and eligibility, which in our view, could play a vital importance, was not considered or ignored by the District Forum. In our view in consumer complaints we cannot expect cent percent proof. We have to appreciate the consumer complaint along with materials conjointly to arrive at some conclusion. We have also to bear in mind why the complainants hail from Tamil Nadu State come and make false allegation against the Ops that they have admitted second complainant to the 1st year D.Ed Course.
6. Let us examine courses offered and in particular in respect of D.Ed Diploma in education on the reverse page of the prospectus in the bottom is shown 2½ years duration, the eligibility criteria is pass in PUC/PDC/10+2 or its equivalent examination with a minimum of 50% marks in aggregate (45% in case of SC/ST and handicapped students). Suffice to hold that OP college misled complainants 1 and 2 and they with fond hope with such criteria would able to admit complainant No.2 to the D.Ed Diploma in Education course in Bangalore City could have paid Rs.80,000/-. Since they have also produced copy of Matriculation examination certificate showing second complainant was confirmed with second class and in Higher Secondary Course Certificate she had secured 676 marks would have admitted to the said course. Since they have also placed copy of the Fee published in Gazette of India Part III Section 4 in terms of section 14 (1) of the NCTE Act 1993 Jalahalli Education Society, Bengaluru, Karnataka had submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Bangalore City Teacher Training Institute, No.160, Chelekere Main Road, Kalyan Nagar Post, Bangalore Rural District Karnataka for Elementary (D.Ed) Course of two and half years duration from academic session 2005-06 with an annual intake of 50 students. The Principal and Five Teachers for the said course were allowed. Complainants have also lodged complaint with Banasawadi Police Station alleging against OP that knowing full well second complainant was not at all eligible for D.Ed course Directors of the OP have admitted her to the said course and as they have published such offer from the eligible candidates in the newspaper for joining D.Ed course, the eligibility criteria is passed in Degree (10+2) have received Rs.80,000/- which would have been refunded, since, failed to refund PCR came to be filed in PCR No.12402/2007 on the file of 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406 and 408 Read with Section 34 of IPC. In the said complaint they have alleged against the OP's Institution and its Directors have committed offence of section of 420. No doubt, from enquiry it is not known what would be final status of this PCR and the complaint lodged with Banasawadi Police, but facts remain from the materials placed on record in its entirety the Complainants have paid Rs.80,000/- could be believed. It is shown that the OP's have received such amount consisting of advance amount of Rs.10,000/- and tuition fee of Rs.70,000/- as found from commitment letter, wherein signature of the second complainant could be seen but no signature was found in the place meant for sign by the Director, but from yet another document, in the original letter head of OP college could see signature of the Principal addressed to the Branch Manger dated 04.08.2006 certifying Miss. Amuthavalli, D/o D.Subramani joined with their institution on 04.08.2006 for first year D.Ed course for the Academic year 2006-07 the duration of the course is 2½ years. In the statement of D.Ed course also furnished and certified that same is issued on the request of the student for the educational loan purpose and in another original letter head, the very Principal of OP on 25.08.2006 had addressed that they have received all the original certificates from Miss. Amuthavalli D/o D.Subramani for the purpose of submitting for the University to D.Ed course for SSLC, PUC, TC, conduct certificate and Migration Certificate. Further we also found No Due Certificate which of course is disputed by OP which in our view, on conjoint appreciation of the case put forth by Complainants and defence taken up considering the legal notice dated 02.01.2007 caused on the Director and Managing Trustees, Bengaluru City College, which was served, suffice to hold that as alleged by Complainants No.1 and 2, OP had rendered deficiency in service. The OP having collected Rs.80,000/- from Complainants No.1 and 2 for D.Ed course knowing full well complainant No.2 an ineligible candidate admitted for the said course. However, the District Forum not at all appreciated the case of the complainants taking into consideration from all angle has to be held committed grave error in dismissing the complaint. As already stated materials placed has to be appreciated conjointly and not in isolation. Hence, we are of the considered opinion, impugned order dated 15.10.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No.857/2008 is unsustainable under law is liable to be set aside. Hence, proceed to allow the Appeal. Consequently, set aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No.857/2008 on the file of IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru and as a result, allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund Rs.80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a from the date of complaint till realisation and do pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for rendering deficiency in service and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation costs within 60 days. Failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from such default date till realisation.
7. Remit back LCR forthwith to the District Commission.
8. Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned.
Lady Member Judicial Member *s [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER