w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

E. Santhosh Rao v/s Indian Institute of Hotel Management And F.T.rep by its Principal, T.Chandramohan & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- H S MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC141500

Company & Directors' Information:- A S INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302DL2005PTC140941

    F.A.No.559 of 2009 against C.C.No.156/2007, District Forum, Rangareddy Dist.

    Decided On, 23 November 2011

    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad


    For the Appellant : M/s. K. Venkateswarlu, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/s. M. Hari Prasad Rao, Advocate.

Judgment Text

(Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.156/07 on the file of Dist Forum, R.R.Dist. the complainant preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as stated in the case are that the complainant approached opposite party no.1 and joined P.G.Diploma in Hotel Management and paid an amount of Rs.36,500/- towards course fee and was allotted an I.D.Card and placed in Aryan College of Hotel Management (OP.3) which is a part of opp.party no.2 Hotel Management College. The complainant was sent for Industrial Training as part of the course for 22 weeks where he suffered serious ill health. The course was not completed within the stipulated time and when the complainant questioned opposite party no.1 he was informed that the examination was to be conducted by O.U./Setwin. Vexed with their attitude, the complainant got issued notice to the opp.parties to refund his fees but did not receive any response. The complainant submits that he lost his career opportunities and the opp.parties failed to clarify the affiliation and examination pattern. Opposite party no.3 issued a Bonafide Certificate on 1.8.2007 for the academic year 2006-2007, but no final examination was conducted. Opposite party issued a reply notice to the complainant on 11.9.07 stating that on humanitarian grounds a course certificate was issued on 21.8.07, even in the absence of any examination having been conducted. Opposite party no.1 issued two course certificates – a memorandum of marks and a course certificate. There is no proper affiliation to opposite party no .1 and hence the complaint seeking direction to the opp.parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,74,766/- for mental agony and loss of academic year together refund of fees with interest and costs.

Opposite parties 1 to 4 filed written version stating that the complainant paid the prescribed course fee but the hall ticket for the panel examination was not issued to the complainant only because the complainant failed to complete the industrial training within the prescribed period. Opposite parties further submitted that they issued the course certificate to the complainant only after the conduction of the examination. They deny that the complainant lost career opportunities on account of their Institute not having proper affiliation. They submit that they got the appropriate affiliation and permission to run the Hotel Management course and hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and seek dismissal of the complaint with costs.

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A14 and B1 and B2 dismissed the complaint.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

The facts not in dispute are that the complainant joined opposite party no.1 College of Hotel Management and was accommodated in opposite party no..3 College i.e. Aryan College of Hotel Management, Dilsukhnagar. Ex.A1 is the prospectus of the opp.party which shows that the complainant joined P.G. course in Hotel Management which is the one year course. In the Brochure it is clearly stipulated that it is affiliated to Setwin i.e. it is franchise of Setwin. Ex.A3 is the I.D. Card issued to the complainant which is not in dispute. Exs.A4 to A7 are the receipts for the payments made by the complainant towards the course and hostel fees etc. . Ex.A8 is the medical prescription dated 3.11.06 showing that the complainant was suffering from sepsis of toes and was advised rest. Ex.A10 is the memorandum of marks issued to the complainant wherein he secured 70% marks and Ex.A11 is a certificate issued in the name of the complainant by opposite party no.1 for the academic year 2006-07. It is the complainant’s case that this certificate was given without conducting final examination and that there was no proper affiliation. He even got issued a legal notice Ex.A12 to the opp.parties calling upon them to refund his fee and pay compensation for which opposite party no.1 replied vide Ex.A14 stating that the course certificate was given to him on humanitarian ground inspite of the fact that he did not complete his industrial training. The contention of the appellant/complainant that the Institute did not have proper affiliation is unsustainable in the light of Ex.A1 prospectus page 9 wherein it is stated that the institute is a franchise of Setwin. The complainant himself admitted in his complaint that he could not complete that industrial training as he suffered serious ill health at Ramoji Film City. We find force in the contention of the respondent/opp.party that the complainant could not appear for the final examination and could not get certificate from the affiliated authorities i.e. Setwin because he did not complete his industrial training and hence he could not appear for final examination. It is not in dispute that Ex.A10 marks memo and Ex.A11 certificate were issued to the appellant/complainant. In the light of the admission by the complainant that he himself could not complete the industrial training and also the documentary evidence Ex.A1 brochure which stipulates that opposite party no.1 institute is a franchise of Setwin, the contention of the complainant that the opp.party misled him into believing that the institute is affiliated to the university is unsustainable. It is pertinent to note that the complainant did not complete his i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ndustrial training and that therefore did not appear for the final examination and opposite party no.1 institute issued ‘course certificate’ on humanitarian grounds and the complainant could not obtain the certificate from Setwin as he did not sit for the final examination and therefore we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the opp.parties and we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum. In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order of the Dist. Forum. No costs.