State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
T. Muthu Kumar vs The Regional Manager on 10 December, 2008
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice N. KANNADASAN, PRESIDENT THIRU Pon. GUNASEKARAN B.A.,B.L., MEMBER - I O.P.NO.26/2002 DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2008 T. Muthu Kumar, | M/s. V. Annalakshmi 5/19, William Street, | Counsels for Mornington, | Complainant Dunedin, | New Zealand. | Vs. 1. The Regional Manager, | Asset International, | 64, Cathedral Road, | Chennai 600 086. | Opposite Parties | 2. The Center Manager, | Asset International, | Vadapalani Branch, | Rahat Plaza, 172 Arcot Road, | Vadapalani, | Chennai 600 026. | ORDER
N. KANNADASAN J.
1. The brief facts as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant has completed higher secondary course in the year 2001. He intended to pursue higher studies in computer education. At that point of time, the opposite parties issued advertisements in leading dailies, wherein tall claims were made under the caption The Australian IT Industry is currently having a skill shortage of about 35000 IT professional, with a question Want to be a part of the solution and thepamphlets, Prospectus and the Brochures, Diploma in Information Technology, Software Development, A 16 month programme that begins in India and ends in Australia (Melbourne City) issued jointly by AITCI, Australian IT Career institute and Asset International, Chennai. The complainant after going through the above advertisement has opted to join the said course. According to the prospectus of the opposite parties, it was proclaimed therein that they intended to offer education for employment and also announced that they have an alliance with Australian IT Career Institute (AITCI) a Subsidiary of Powerlan Limited, offering IT education, a first of its kind in India. The duration of the course was indicated as 16 months, and the 1st first 6 months programme commenced from August 2001 to January 2002, and the said course would be offered initially by the 2nd opposite party and thereafter at Australia for the remaining period. The brochure issued by the opposite parties also contained the following caption The IT Training covers two countries, the IT carreer opportunities cover the globe. The complainant has submitted his application and by communication dt.26.6.2001, he was informed about the selection and the study programmes. Subsequently, the complainant attended interview and the 2nd opposite party in its communication dt.10.7.2001 informed him that he was provisionally selected. Thereafter the complainant has paid Rs.75000/-
by way of tuition fees and towards the course fees for diploma in Information Technology- Software Development as per correspondence of second opposite party dt.10.8.2001 and 22.10.2001. The complainant has subsequently paid further amount of Rs.5000/- to the British Deputy High Commission towards IELTS Test Fees and another sum of R.5000/- for the preparation of the said course. The complainant has attended the course from 29th August 2001. He has also purchased a computer with accessories worth about Rs.65000/- on 22.10.2001. The complainant has also obtained bank loan and a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- was disbursed so far and he has also taken an Endowment Policy for Rs.4 lakhs and is paying the premium continuously, which is one of the mandatory condition for going abroad. In the meanwhile, by correspondence dt.16.10.2001, the complainant was informed that AITCI is withdrawing from the International Education Market and new students would not be admitted, and those who have already registered with Asset International, can pursue similar course with TAFE NSW, Southern Sydney. The complainant was shocked to note that the new course, which was promised is for a period of two years and it would cost an additional sum of A$ 17000/-. Apart from additional expenses, to process visa the application has to be submitted to the Australian High Commission before 4.12.2001. Under the above circumstances, the complainant was not in a position to pursue further studies and an academic year was lost to him and he was constrained to pay interest to the Bank as well as premium to the policy and incurred huge expenses and accordingly claimed a sum of Rs.13,81,000/- under various heads alleging deficiency in service.
2. The opposite parties resisted the complaint as set out hereunder:
The various averments made in the complaint are not based on the correct facts. The complainant has joined the course conducted by the opposite parties for a Diploma in Information Technology & Software Development in the month of August 2001. It is admitted that the complainant has to complete four modules (Ver 2.0) of E-Commerce in India and the rest of module to be completed in Australia wherein the first opposite party had a tie up with a leading Australian conglomerate namely M/s.Powerlan Limited which is one of Australias largest IT & T Companies of whom M/s.AITIC (Australian IT Careers Institute) is a subsidiary. The complainant had paid a total tuition fee of Rs.75,000/- towards the course opted by him. When things stood thus as the course was progressing the opposite parties were shocked to receive a communication from the Australian IT Carriers Institute dated 06.09.2001 unilaterally terminating the contract for imparting the course. On termination of the contract, the opposite parties acted immediately and made arrangements for existing students to continue their course in another premier institution namely TAFE NSW. The courses offered by the said Institute were also of the same standard and tuition fees charged was also on the same lines. Several other students have joined in the said Institute and they have sent letters of the appreciation. The complainant after discontinuing of the course in AITCI, joined in another Institute which is suppressed in the complaint. The complainant having issued a legal notice only for a sum of Rs.1,62,000/-, has chosen to make an exorbitant claim without any basis.
Under the said circumstances, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The Learned Counsel for the complainant has filed Proof Affidavit and marked documents in Ex.A1 to Ex.A21. The opposite parties though filed a Version through their Counsels, have not chosen to file any documents. The Counsels for the opposite parties have reported no instructions. Hence, we are inclined to decide the matter on the basis of the materials available on record.
4. A perusal of Ex.A1 series namely advertisement, pamphlets and brochure substantiate the contentions urged by the complainant about the manner in which such advertisements are made as narrated supra. Ex.A3 dated 10.07.2001 is the communication sent by the second opposite party about the selection of the complainant to the course. Ex.A4 dated 10.08.2001 is the communication addressed by the second opposite party about the placement details to study the course namely Diploma in Information Technology & Software Development in alliance with AITCI, Australia. In the said Exhibit, it is admitted that the course has to begin in India and ends in Australia and training program is also recognized by the relevant Australian Government Departments. Ex.A5 is the communication sent to the complainant by the Australian IT Careers Institute wherein the details of the course as well as fee to be paid by the complainant were disclosed. Ex.A6 is the acknowledgement issued by the second opposite party for having received a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards tuition fee from the complainant. The above details disclose, the complainant was made to believe that he has been selected in the course offered by the opposite parties with tie up arrangement of Australian Institute. Since certain other conditions are set out to pursue the course in the Foreign Country, the complainant was constrained to initiate such steps by spending a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards IELTS test fee paid to the British Council Division in Ex.A7. Another sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid by him to one Institute called CLASSIC Academy to pursue the very same course as evident in Ex.A7 series. The complainant has incurred an expenditure of Rs.65,000/- in Ex.A8 for the purchase of computer and other accessories. Since the opposite parties discontinued the course, the complainant has chosen to send Lawyers notice dated 24.01.2002 wherein the details with regard to the expenditure incurred by him to the extend of Rs.1,61,000/- was set out and other expenditure including Rs.20,000/- as interest paid to the loan which was obtained from the Bank.
5. Even though the opposite parties took a stand that the tie up arrangement with Australian Institute has come to end abruptly and they have initiated necessary steps to enroll all the students to join in the course to another reputed Institute in Australia in respect for the same amount of fees, the version filed by the opposite parties is silent with regard to the additional expenses which the complainant was constrained to incur to pursue the course in the other Institute. Since no proper explanation was not offered either in the version or by way of reply for the Lawyers notice sent by the complainant, we have to come to the irresistible conclusion that the complainant cannot pursue the said course for the same amount to which the opposite parties agreed upon by joining the course with the other institute. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has lost one academic year and more particularly the qualified/degree holders in the Computer course was very much demand at the relevant point of time. Even though a stand is taken by the opposite party that other students have pursued their course in the other Institute, the said statement was not substantiated by adducing any documentary evidence. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant was made to believe by the opposite parties that they would impart the course which was offered by them through Australian Company, but later on, could not comply with the said promise made by them.
6. Even though we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, we do not agree that the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.13,81,000/- under various heads. As narrated already, the complainant himself has chosen to sent a Lawyers Notice Ex.A11 wherein it is clearly indicated that he has actual expenses incurred a sum of Rs.1,61,000/- and other sundry expenses including payment of interest to the Bank which is Rs.20,000/- and in all comes to Rs.1,81,000/-. The complainant has marked Ex.A20 series wherein he has paid a premium of Rs.11,713/- per annum toward insurance policy. The complainant was constrained to take insurance policy which is one of the mandatory condition to pursue the course in Australia and as such one year premium alone can be taken into account (by rounding it off Rs.11,700/-) towards the amount spent by him to pursue the course. We are not inclined to accept the other expenditure claimed by the complainant. Thus it is seen that the complainant has incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,61,000 + Rs.20,000 + Rs.11,700 = Rs.1,92,700/- and one academic year is also lost. For the loss of one academic year, we are inclined to quantify a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation.
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,92,700/- with interest at 12% per annum from 01.11.2001 before which date the amount was spent till the date of realization and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the loss of one academic year and a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony due to deficiency caused by the opposite parties and a sum of Rs.1,000/- by way of cost. Time to comply the above orders is four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
PON GUNASEKARAN N. KANNADASAN MEMBER-I PRESIDENT List of documents filed by the complainant Ex.A1 Advertisment, Pamphlets, Brochures, Flow Chart regarding Visa Application issued jointly by AITCI and APTECH ASSET International.
Ex.A2 28.05.2001 Higher Secondary Course Certificate of the complainant.
Ex.A3 10.07.2001 Provisionally selected information issued by ASSET International.
Ex.A4 10.08.2001 Placement Information issued by ASSET International.
Ex.A5 26.06.2001 Placement Information issued by Australian IT Careers Institute.
Ex.A6 22.10.2001 Acknowledgement for Tuition fees paid by the complainant to ASSET International.
Ex.A7 10.11.2001 Fees paid at British Council Division and Classic Academy.
Ex.A8 22.10.2001 Receipt issued by Divya Enterprises for the purchase of computer.
Ex.A9 16.10.2001 Withdrawal Information of AITCI from International Education Market.
Ex.A10 02.01.2002 Representation given by complainant to the Regional Manager, ASSET International.
Ex.A11 24.01.2002 Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.A12 24.01.2002 Postal Fee for the Registration of the Legal Notice.
Ex.A13 25.01.2002 Acknowledgement Card received by second OP.
Ex.A14 25.01.2002 Refusal of the Notice by first OP and relevant records.
Ex.A15 08.01.2002 Intimation given to the Centre Manager, ASSET International by the State Bank of Indore.
Ex.A16 26.05.2002 Paper Publication in Dinamalar Newspapaer.
Ex.A17 29.05.2002 Paper Publication in Dinamalar Newspaper.
Ex.A18
--
Fax sent TAFE NSW to the Ops.
Ex.A19
--
Letter by ICICI Home Finance.
Ex.A20
--
LIC premium paid by complainant on various dates.
Ex.A21 22.04.2008 Letter given by State Bank of Indore.
Exhibits of the opposite party:
-NIL-
PON GUNASEKARAN N. KANNADASAN MEMBER-I PRESIDENT