ALLA KRISHNA KISHORE Vs. VENKAT EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that the facts involved in the subject matter of the case can be adjudicated only by a civil court.

(2.) The facts of the case leading to filing of the appeal are that the appellant is a legal practitioner with B.Tech and LL.B qualification. At the relevant time he was plasticizing as a lawyer at Gannavaram. In order to enhance his qualification the appellant after going through the advertisement published in a leading newspaper in the month of November 2001 that M.Tech (I.T.) course was offered by the respondent no.2, made enquiry with the respondent no.1 about the details of the course. The respondent no.2 informed the appellant that the course was conducted by them through the constituent body, the respondent no.3 and assured him that the classes would be conducted at respondent no.1 institute in weekends. It was stated to the appellant that the classes included theory and practical and the subjects would be taught by the eminent professors of university engineering colleges. It was also informed him that computers would be provided on 1:1 basis to the students for the course which runs over the duration of two years and exams would be conducted annually at their study center in Vijayawada. The fees was about Rs.18,000/- per year. It was also promised that study material would be supplied to all the students with necessary notes. Separate classes would be conducted for the students who are lagging behind. The respondent no.2 promised the appellant that it will award regular course type degree without the caption Distance Education.

(3.) The appellant joined the course by paying Rs.18,000/- on 13.11.2001 towards the fees for the first year and Rs.19,500/- on 31.10.2002 towards the fees for the second year. The classes began in the month of December 2001 and they were held for six weeks by unqualified lecturers. In the second year no classes were conducted by the respondent no.1. For practical they had not arranged classes with sufficient number of computers with software and the lecturers therefor. Outdated software was used and computers were provided to the students. The director of respondent no.1 P.M.Suri misused his official position as the Inspector of A.P. Reserve Police. The respondent no.1 assured the appellant that they are entitled to award 70% marks in the first year and 80% marks in the second year. The study material was not provided in the first year. The appellant had made his own arrangement of study in the first year and second year in view of the non-cooperation on the part of the respondent no.1. The respondents had not awarded marks for internal assessment for attendance and behavior as also for the assignments. The appellant was made to pay Rs.300/- excess as penalty for late fees prescribed for university examination fees. The respondent no.1 did not inform the students in advance about the due date for payment of examination fees.