RAMESH KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. INSTITUTE OF HAEMATOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Ramesh Kumar Malhotra, complainant, got admitted his daughter Rinki Malhotra to the Institute of Haematology for Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology (D. M. L. T. Course ). His case was that the opposite party represented at the time of admission that the Institute was recognised by the Government as also the course imparted by it. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.8,035/- to the Institute as fee. In addition to complainant's daughter 12 other students had taken admission to the same Institute. Out of them 11 students left as no proper education was imparted. Only one Vinayak Chaudhary and complainant's daughter continued. Examinations were held on 13.6.1994. Vinayak Chaudhary was declared to have been passed but his daughter failed and was required no reappear in the next examination. The complainant reported the matter to the police. The opposite party issued a fresh result-sheet showing Rinki Malhotra to have passed the examination. The Institute appeared to have prepared a copy of the result-sheet of Vinayak Chaudhary and only changed the name of the student from Vinayak to Rinki Malhotra leaving the other particulars intact. It further appeared that Vinayak Chaudhary had been declared successful in the examination as he had paid Rs.10,000/- as fee. With these allegations the complainant approached District Forum for payment of Rs.38,435/- on account of fee deposited by him together with interest and compensation. The opposite party contested the claim through its Chairman V. B. Lal. A plea was taken that the complainant was not covered under the definition of 'consumer' as defined in the Act. It was further pleaded that at no stage was any representation made that the Institute for the courses conducted by it was recognised by the Government. Copy of the prospectus of the institute was filed. With regard to the change in the result-sheet it was stated that the complainant brought pressure from the police to bear on the opposite party. On the basis of an oral test the revised result card was given to her. Inadvertently the roll number etc. of another candidate namely Vinayak Chaudhary were mentioned and if the complainant so required the same could be easily corrected.

(2.) The District Forum held that the complainant having hired the services of the opposite party on payment of consideration was covered in the definition of the word consumer'. Relying on the prospectus placed on record by the opposite party, it was held that no representation was made by the opposite party that Institute or the course conducted by it were recognised. The error in mentioning a wrong registration number and roll number in the result card were taken to amount to deficiency in service and the opposite party directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation and expenses incurred by him. Dis-satisfied with the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the fact that 11 students out of 12 admitted with the complainant's daughter left in mid session showed that no training worth the name was imparted, forcing almost all the students to leave the Institute. He further submitted that the manner in which the Institute was functioning is shown by the significant fact that the complainant's daughter was declared fail in the first instance and when the matter was reported to the police, she was declared passed. The contention of Mr. Umesh Singh, Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, is that if the Institutes were recognised, there was no manner of doubt that this all-important fact would have been prominently mentioned the prospectus. Admittedly, the prospectus placed on record by the opposite party did not show that the Institute was recognised. It is consistent with the human probability that before putting one's child to an Institute one would like to make sure whether the Institute was recognised or not. It is well known that value of the certificate depends on the fact whether the Institute is recognised or not. In the absence of recognition by the Government the certificate issued is mostly a value-less piece of paper. On the basis of such certificate a person could not hope to get any post. We are, therefore, not persuaded to believe that it was represented to the complainant that the Institute as well as courses conducted by it were recognised by the Government, there being no such indication in the prospectus. The respondent appears to have declared the complainant's daughter as having been successful in the examination possibly on account of the police intervention. Hardly any case of deficiency in service had been proved. However, the District Forum granted Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and the opposite party having failed to file any appeal there against, the matter must rest there. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parties as well as District Forum-III.