Decided on February 26,2010

Orbit Institute Of Science And Technology And Ors Appellant
Jeevan Soft Tech And Ors Respondents


- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order in C.D. 370/2006 on the file of the District Forum I, Hyderabad, the first opposite party preferred FA 1837/2007 and the 2nd opposite party preferred FA 401/2009. Since both the appeals arise out of the common consumer case, we are disposing of both these appeals by common order.
(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, attracted by the notification given by the 4th opposite party in the daily news papers applied for M.SC (IM) in 4th Opposite party University for which OP.3 is National Service Provider of OP. 4. OP.2 is local service provider and OP. 1 is local study centre. The complainant joined M.SC (IM) course in the month of September, 2002 and paid Rs.27,000/ - to the opposite party. OP.4 gave particulars of the course. The course is only one year consisting of two semesters. The complainant went to OP.1 study centre for attending classes of his course but the OP 1 did not conduct even a single class and did not have any faculty member to teach the student and the OP failed to provide any faculty member and also did not give any study material and conducted examination in the year 2004 but did not give the said certificate till date. The complainant submits that he sent e -mail to OP. 4 requesting for the results of the examination since he got a job offer from USA but still he did not receive any reply. Thereafter he sent a letter on 02.05.2006 to the OPs calling upon them to refund Rs.27,000/ - and further submits that he is a poor person hails from a small village of Warangal District and after completion of B.C.A course in the year 2001 from K.U. University he joined M.SC (IM) by paying Rs.27,000/ - to the opposite parties but till date he did not receive any certificate from them in spite of writing the examination . Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.50,000/ - towards mental agony, Rs.50,000/ - towards loss of academic year and refund of Rs.27,000/ - with interest and other costs.
(3.) OPPOSITE parties 1 and 2 filed their written version. OP.1 contended that it is a leading Educational Institution having good reputation throughout India and is registered with the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh and the OP. 1 agreed to be associated for the courses offered by OP. 4 and OPs 2 and 3 also joined in the agreement and the basic consideration was that the training in their courses to be imparted by OP 1 based on the study material supplied by OP 4 and OP.4 will provide through OP 2 and OP 3 prospectus and ID Card etc. and the responsibility of conducting examination in the semester system will be of OP 4 which also which also shall grant memorandum of marks as well as the certificate subject to as and when recived and OP 1 has no part to play except imparting education. The OP 1 contends that it appointed professors for conducting the course opted by different students and the examination of all the semesters was conducted by OP. 4 with cooperation of OPs 2 and 3 and OP 1 communicated to all other OPs to do the needful as it will reflect on the reputation of OP 1. The other Ops even did not acknowledge the communication of OP.1. He addressed several letters to the OPs together with reminders and there is no deficiency in service on his behalf. The OP.1 has severed relations with OP 4 and the complainant wanted bonafide certificate which was also issued by OP. 1 and the OP 1 has nothing to do with the administration, i.e. giving of marks and certificates and therefore the complaint may be dismissed against them. The second opposite party filed counter stating that there is no privity of contract between the applicant and the OP 2 and the complainant is not a consumer. It is only an associate service provider of Punjab Technical University through their regional service provider and the MOU provides various terms and conditions. As far as this OP is concerned, their obligation under the MOU is contained in Sec. 4. On intimation of OP 1 issued a letter to OP 3 to deal with the pending issues and because of two agreements dted 3.9.2001 and 15.6.2002 , the OP 2 is only a service provider and duly discharged his obligations. The complainant has not addressed any letter to the OPs much less a letter dated 2.5.2006 demanding for refund of the amount and denies that they failed to conduct a single class nor supplied proper study material and only OPs 1 and 3 are concerned with either admission, training or conducting of classes and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.