Institute Of Management Development And Research vs Ateesh Saurya

APPELLANT Institute runs Diploma Course in Exports. On account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not commencing the class after accepting the requisite fees or charges from the due date and not informing the respondent that its recognition had been withdrawn from 22.7.2000 whereas the appellant accepted Rs. 500 as examination fees on 12.5.2001, vide impugned order dated 1.5.2003, passed by the District Forum, it has been directed to refund the sum of Rs. 15,000 with interest @ 10% p.a. from 12.5.2001 when the last payment of Rs. 500 was received by the appellant and to pay Rs. 5,000 on account of loss of his valuable time and carrier and cost of litigation.

FEELING aggrieved it has directed this appeal. Appellant was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum and in the instant case the appellant has neither controverted nor denied the factual matrix inasmuch as that the respondent joined the diploma course run by the appellant and paid Rs. 5,000 vide cheque dated 23.1.2000, that the classes were to commence from 1.3.2000 but it did not commence till October, 2000 when the respondent received a telephone that the classes will commence from 17.10.2000 with the assurance that the course will be completed by June 2001. Accordingly the respondent joined the appellant institute on 17.10.2000 and made payment of second instalment of Rs. 5,000 on 11.1.2001 and again third instalment of Rs. 5,000 on 24.4.2001. He also paid a sum of Rs. 500 as examination fees on 12.5.2001. So much so the appellant informed the respondent vide letter dated 9.7.2001 that the examination would be held in October/November 2001 and in the meantime the respondent contacted AICTE -CEP and was informed that the recognition of the appellant institute has been withdrawn w.e.f. 22.7.2000 as such the representation of the appellant that the institute/course has approval of AICTE -CEP was a fraud.

ADMITTEDLY no examination was ever held by the appellant nor full course was ever taught to the respondent. The aforesaid facts on the face of it demonstrate the unfair practice and the unauthorised retention of the amount of fees. It was again fraud to continue with the classes for three long months, which commenced from 17.10.2000 inspite of withdrawal of recognition by the AICTE -CEP, w.e.f. 22.7.2000. There is no doubt that the respondent has suffered immensely in terms of money, time and career. For any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the provider of service like the appellant the consumer is entitled to compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him.

SO far as the refund of fees and compensation of Rs. 5,000 is concerned we do not perceive any reason to interfere with it. However, the training imparted for three months though on misrepresentation that the examination will be held in October/November 2001, we feel inclined to waive off the interest awarded by the District Forum as interest as well as compensation are not awardable under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal disposed of. -