State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Perisetla Venkateswara Rao, vs Kranthi Educational Society, on 10 June, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD FA 655 of 2011 against CC 45/2010, Dist. Forum, Tirupathi Between Perisetla Venkateswara Rao, S/o. P. Ravikumar, D.No.50-80-71, 5th Floor, Aditya Complex, Rajendranagar, Seethammapet, Visakapatnam, *** Appellant/ Complainant And 1. Kranthi Educational Society, Rep. by its Director, D.No.234, Sunnapu Street, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. M. Sudarsan Reddy, S/o. Ragava Reddy, Director, Kranthi Educational Society & College, D.No.234, Sunnapu Street, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3. Directorate of Distance Education, Vinayaka Missions University, Sankari Main Road, (NH-47), Ariyanoor Salem, Tamilnadu 636 308. *** Respondents/ Opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. P. Ramesh Babu Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. N. Raghuveer (R1 & R2) CORAM: SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER & SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN ORAL ORDER:
(Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) ***
1) Aggrieved by the order in CC No. 45/2010 on the file of Dist. Forum, Tirupathi, the complainant preferred this appeal.
2) The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant believing the paper advertisement issued by Ops 1 & 2 and believing their version that Op1 is an authorized study center of IASE Deemed University, Rajasthan, the complainant joined for two year M.Tech (E&C) course having four semesters by paying admission fee of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-
towards examination fee on 9.8.2004 and 10.11.2004 respectively. The complainant submits that all of a sudden the Govt. of A.P. black listed the said IASE Deemed University, Rajasthan and refused to recognize any educational certificates issued by the said university. Immediately, he approached Op2 who promised to provide admission for M.Tech (E&C) in another university for which Op2 demanded Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, he paid Rs. 50,000/- by way of cheques on 4.2.2006 which were acknowledged by Op2 on a letter-head. When he demanded for receipts, Op2 executed a promissory note for Rs. 66,000/- on 4.2.2006 for the entire amount received from the complainant towards M.Tech (E&C) course. When the complainant demanded for conducting examinations for the 1st year two semesters, Op2 postponed on one pretext or the other and conducted the examinations for 2nd year 3rd and 4th semesters through an unknown university viz., Vinayaka Missions University, Salem, Tamil Nadu (Op3) which also issued memorandum of marks for 4th semester dt. 8.5.2007. The complainant suspected the genuineness of the marks memo issued by Op2.
The complainant came to know that Op2 has been running a fake institution and issuing bogus certificates. When he demanded for refund of the amount paid by him, Op2 agreed to repay the same at the earliest. The complainant submits that when he secured a job in a private firm, he moved to Visakapatnam and Op2 suddenly sent a fake provisional certificate dt. 21.9.2007 of Vinayaka Mission University which is a bogus one. In spite of several requests Op2 failed to refund the amount.
Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice on 11.1.2010 calling upon the Op2 to refund Rs. 66,000/- collected from him for M.Tech course with interest but there is no response. Hence this complaint seeking directions against Ops 1 & 2 to refund an amount of Rs.
66,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., together with compensation and costs.
3) Ops 1 & 2 filed written version denying the allegations made by the complainant. Op2 submitted that he is running Kranthi Educational Society, a study center affiliated to IASE University of Rajasthan. They admit that the complainant approached them in the year 2004 to join M.Tech course of IASE University and sought proper coaching and guidance for which he paid Rs. 12,000/- towards coaching and study material. All of a sudden the complainant approached Ops 1 & 2 and demanded refund of amount on the ground that A.P. Govt. black listed the IASE University, and took back the said amount. Again the complainant approached the Op1 in the year 2006 stating that he joined in two year M.Tech (E&C) consisting of four semesters in Vinayaka Mission University (Op3) and sought for coaching and study material. Op2 submits that the complainant appeared for two semesters only and got the provisional certificate issued by Vinayaka Mission University (Op3). Ops 1 & 2 submit that they are no way concerned with the conducting of examinations, issuance of provisional certificates and marks memo etc. The complainant did not attend the remaining semester examinations to complete the course. The provisional certificate and the marks memo issued by Op3 to the complainant are genuine and not bogus or fake as alleged by the complainant. In order to make unlawful gain, the complainant created a forged and concocted promissory note. There is no deficiency of service on their behalf as they provided the necessary coaching and study material to the complainant and they have nothing to do with the conducting of examinations, issuance of marks memo and provisional certificate etc. They submit that they purely come under the domain of concerned universities.
4) Op3 filed its written version contending that the complainant joined in IASE Deemed University, Rajasthan for M.Tech (E&C) course and studied there for first two semesters and then migrated to Op3 university for the last two semesters. At the time of admission, the complainant gave an affidavit for migration. Op3 submits that they collected nominal course fee and examination fee and after completion of the course they have issued the provisional certificate to the complainant in June, 2006. After studying two semesters in Op3 university, the complainant started making false allegations that the provisional certificate and marks memo issued by Op3 is bonus and fake in order to make unlawful gain. The university issued the marks memo clearly mentioning about the course, subjects studied and the marks secured etc. The complainant is not competent to certify that the provisional certificate and the marks memo issued by Op3 is bogus. The dispute if any is in between the complainant and Ops 1 & 2 and Op3 has nothing to do with it. There is no deficiency of service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5) The Dist. Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs. A1 to A9 and the pleadings put forward dismissed the complaint.
6) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
7) It is the appellant/complainants case that as per Exs. A1 to A4 the complainant has paid the amounts to Ops 1 & 2 by way of cheques which were encashed by them without conducting the examinations for the first two semesters and has straight away conducted 3rd and 4th semesters through an unrecognized university viz., Vinayaka Missions University, Salem, Tamil Nadu (Op3). They gave affidavit for migration against the wish and will of the complainant as it was given to an unknown university. The complainant submits that the Ops 1 & 2 collected the amounts and utilized the same without providing proper education, training for the M.Tech course instead collected huge amount of Rs. 50,000/-. It is also his case that the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh black listed the IASE Deemed University to which Op1 study center is affiliated. Op2 has admitted to refund of the amount by way of promissory note i.e., Ex. A4, and therefore he is entitled for the amount paid by him.
8) It is the case of Ops 1 & 2 that they have provided all the study material and relevant coaching and that copy of the provisional certificate filed by the complainant does not bear their name and that it is a genuine certificate issued by Op3 university. The coaching center is being run successfully for the last 10 years and that the complainant had forged the promissory note in order to harass the Ops 1 & 2.
9) It is the case of the Op3 that the complainant had joined in the IASE Deemed University for M.Tech Course and did his 1st and 2nd semesters in the said university and then migrated to Op3 university for the last two semesters. At the time of admission into the said course, the complainant gave an affidavit to Op3 for migration. Op3 collected regular fee for the course and issued provisional certificate to the complainant in June, 2006 after the completion of the course having completed the two semesters. The complainant has now alleged that the provisional certificate issued was a bogus one. The marks sheet issued by Op3 shows course details, year of study and the marks secured and submits that Op3 is no way concerned with the dispute between the complainant and Ops 1 & 2.
10) It is not in dispute that the appellant/complainant studied for the 1st year two semesters in the IASE Deemed University for M.Tech course and then migrated to Op3 university for the last two semesters. It is also not in dispute that the complainant gave an affidavit to Op3 for migration and joined in Op3 university. Ex. A5 is the statement of marks given by Op3 university in May, 2007. Ex. A6 is the provisional certificate issued by Op3 for the same year in Sept, 2007. It is the appellant/complainants case that the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh blacklisted the IASE Deemed University, Rajasthan, and refused to recognize through its G.O. The complainant has filed paper publication stating that the said university is black listed. He also filed university list issued by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development (HRD) wherein deemed status awarded to the universities in the country were withdrawn. In this list Vinayaka Missions University, Salem, Tamil Nadu (Op3) stood at Sl. No.
11. Ex. A4 is the promissory note issued in the name of the complainant on 4.2.2006 for an amount of Rs. 66,000/- by Op2 which the Ops 1 & 2 are contending that it was forged. It is pertinent to note that the original marks sheet and the original provisional certificate filed by Op3 evidence that examinations were taken in the month of July, 2006 and these two are dt. 8.5.2007 and 21.09.2007 whereas the information which the complainant filed before this Commission shows that the Deemed University status was withdrawn in February, and March, 2010. So, at the time of cause of action the said university i.e., Op3 was still existing and not black listed. Even otherwise, the complainant did not file the G.O. which he stated in his legal notice that the Govt. of A.P. has issued a G.O. black listing the said university. In the absence of any documentary evidence that the said university is black listed by the Govt. of A.P. and also in the absence of any evidence that the certificates/marks sheet issued by Ops are fabricated or bogus, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency of service on behalf of Ops.
11) We rely on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in 2009 (4) CPR 421 (SC) wherein it was held:
The object of the Act is to cover in its net, services offered or rendered for a consideration. Any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi-commercial activity). But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of examination or evaluation of answer scripts or furnishing of marks sheet or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act. We are clearly of the view that the Board is not a service provider and a student who take an examination is not a consumer and consequently complaint under the Act will not be maintainable against the Board.
12) It is not the case of the complainant that the Op3 is not a recognized university. It is his only contention that it was black listed by Govt. of A.P. for which he did not file copy of the relevant G.O. To reiterate that as it is his case that its deemed university status was withdrawn and he filed Ministry of Human Resources Department list which is not a G.O. even otherwise this withdrawal of deemed university which came into effect in February/March, 2010 does not construe that the certificates issued by Op3 which (originals) have been filed here issued in July, 2006 are bogus or fabricated. The complainant has not taken any steps to send for experts opinion to establish that these certificates were fabricated.
13) In the light of aforementioned reasons and also judgment of Honble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that no deficiency of service can be attributed to the opposite parties. Hence this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
14) In the result this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER
2) ________________________________ MEMBER 10/06/2013 *pnr UP LOAD O.K.