INTEGRATED EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION vs COMPUTER POINT LIMITED

INTEGRATED Education Development Organisation, complainant for short, is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act. The complainant saw admission notice inserted on behalf of the Birla Institute of Technology (BIT), a deemed university, which conveyed the impression that Computer Point Limited, arrayed as opposite party in this complaint had association/affiliation with the said institute. Prospectus issued by the opposite party confirmed the above impression. In the prospectus it was, inter alia, stated that Birla Institute of Technology (BIT) Mesra, Ranchi and Computer Point Limited had formed an Association to provide a curriculum evolved over years of field expertise and academic excellence of BIT Ranchi and Industry reliance and structured methodology derived from the expertise of Computer Point. The complainant, therefore, approached the opposite party to provide technical knowhow for starting and preparing candidates for Computer Diploma Courses. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the complainant''s Secretary Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Jain and the Regional Manager of the opposite party on 22.2.1994. Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid as consideration vide Pay Order dated 23.2.1994 issued by Canara Bank New Delhi, DD Marg New Delhi. The opposite party also issued a receipt for the same. The complainant repeatedly approached the opposite party to provide the requisite technical know-how but they failed to elicit any satisfactory reply. It was then discovered that the opposite party had no association or affiliation with BIT. Only false representation had been made as a result of which the complainant had been made to part with Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complainant sent a detailed self contained letter dated 15.6.1993 setting out the material facts and calling upon the opposite party to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- with 24% interest and Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation. The complainant failed to receive any reply and accordingly filed the present complaint.

NOTICE was sent under registered cover which was not received back undelivered. Service was, therefore, presumed. None appeared for the opposite party. The complainant filed affidavit of Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Jain, Secretary General of the complainant Society besides a copy of the certificate of registration, copy of the advertisement, prospectus issued by opposite party. Memorandum of Understanding and its letter dated 15.6.1994 in which all material facts were stated.

After going through the record and hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant, we find that the averments made by the complainant stand proved as these are supported by affidavit of Mr. S.K. lain. Secretary General, of the complainant Society and neither averments made in the complaint nor in the affidavit have been controverted. The opposite party did not send even a reply controverting the allegations made in the letter dated 15.6.1994 sent by registered post to the opposite party. The representation made by the opposite party was that they had entered into an Association with BIT Mesra, Ranchi which was a deemed university that they would impart technical know-how which would enable the students to get admission in the examination conducted by BIT. Far from it, it was found that BIT grants admission only to persons on the basis of an entrance test. It was also found that the opposite party had not entered into any association with BIT nor did they deliver technical know-how as promised. This clearly institutes deficiency in service besides being an unfair trade practice.

THE complainant has used the word ''franchise'' in the complaint. We are aware that in the context of the Telephone Department, granting franchise to various franchisees for running STD/ISD services it was held that consumer dispute was made out in GM, Madras Telephone and Others v. R. Kannan, I 1994 CPJ 14 (NC). THE same view was reiterated by the National Commission in Prof. P. Narayanan Kutty v. UP Transport India Ltd. and Others, 1986-96 CONSUMER 1995 NS and Union of India and Other v. Ramesh Kumar, 1986-96 CONSUMER, 2615 NS. THE present case is not one of mere franchise. On the contrary, the opposite party agreed to transfer technical know-how and prepare students eligible for taking the examination conducted by BIT, which was a deemed university. THE opposite party failed to carry-out its obligations and was thus guilty of deficiency in service. The complainant has claimed besides the refund, compensation on the ground that it had made expenditure for acquiring premises and engaging staff, etc. After careful consideration, we are of the view that the order for refund of the principal amount together with 18% interest thereon from the date of payment till refund together with the costs of this proceeding namely Rs. 2,500 /would meet the ends of justice and no case for any further compensation is made-out. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and opposite party directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till its refund and Rs. 2,500/- as costs. The complaint is disposed of in these terms and a copy of the order be communicated to both the parties. Complaint disposed of. ___________