CORRESPONDENT, ST. JOHN'S INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE vs L.VENISH

THE appeals are disposed of by the following common order : THE short question for consideration in all three matters is whether the complainants in the respective cases would be entitled to be refunded the amounts collected by the opposite parties towards fees and other charges. Admittedly, St. John''s Industrial Training Centre of which the 1st opposite party is the Correspondent and the 2nd opposite party is the Principal had led the complainants to believe that the institution was approved by the Central as well as the State Governments. THE complainants, based on the said representation, paid the fees and joined the institution and later on it turned out that the institution did not have the approval by the Central as well as the State Government.

ONE of the points raised before the District Forum and also reiterated before us was that in educational matters the Consumer Forum did not have jurisdiction. This point is no longer available now that it is settled that educational institutions could also be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act. Because of the non-approval and non-affiliation, the complainants could not appear for the final examination during the academic years 1997-98 and 1998-99 and they had to waste those years.

On the side of the opposite parties it was contended that approval for the course applied for and joined by the complainants had been recommended to the Director General of Employment and Training, New Delhi and they were moving the Director General of Employment and Training to get affiliation. It is however in evidence that wherever the expression ''Not Recommended'' (NR) had been mentioned the institutions concerned had been specifically instructed not to admit students for those courses which were not recommended.

UNFORTUNATELY, in the present cases, the complainants had been admitted in the courses which had not been recommended. Absolutely, no case is made out by the institution represented by the Correspondent and the Principal for us to differ from the view taken by the District Forum. The District Forum has rightly found that there was deficiency in service and directed refund of the amount of fees and other charges paid by the respective complainants to the opposite parties besides compensation and costs. We do not find any merit in these appeals. In the result, all the appeals namely A.P. Nos. 598, 599 and 602/2001 fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the appeals. Appeals dismissed.