INTEGRATED EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION Vs. COMPUTER POINT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) Notice was sent under registered cover which was not received back undelivered. Service was, therefore, presumed. None appeared for the opposite party.

(3.) 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.