AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K.Jain, J
The petitioner was engaged in offering several courses including Higher National Diploma in Nautical Science. The complainant took admission in the aforesaid course and completed the same in 2005-2007. The grievance of the complainant is that though the said course had not been approved by the Government of India, the aforesaid information was not disclosed in the prospectus issued by the petitioner. Since on completion of the course, the complainant did not get the Continuous Discharge Certificate (CDC) from the Government, despite having completed the above referred course of the petitioner, on account of the approval of Director General of Shipping having not been obtained by the petitioner, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking compensation etc.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which took a preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by limitation. On merits, it was alleged that on completion of the course by the complainant, he was provided the requisite certificate namely Higher National Diploma in Nautical Science (HND-NS). This was also the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid Diploma had been approved by Maritime Education & Training (VAMET) U.K. and the said information was duly disclosed in the prospectus.
The District Forum having allowed the complaint and having directed the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.8,50,000/- which the complainant had paid to it alongwith compensation quantified at Rs.50,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.20,000/-, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.
The only question involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner was required to obtain approval from the Directorate General of Shipping, before issuing prospectus for the year in which the complainant took admission in the above referred course or at least to disclose the MS Notice dated 03.12.2003 issued by Dy. Director General of Shipping on the above referred subject.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that under the rules called Merchant Shipping/(Continuous Discharge Certificate-cum-Seafarers Identity Document) Rules, 2001, any citizen of India, in possession of a valid Certificate of Competency issued by any foreign nation was eligible to request for issuance of a CDC and since the MS Notice dated 03.12.2003 applied only to a new course and not to an existing course, the same was not applicable in the case of the complainant.
MS Notice dated 03.12.2003 to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
"DGS Order No. 10 of 2001 issued vide No. 15(9) CR/99 date 16.10.2001 accords to training institutes to conduct specified courses as prescribed by foreign maritime nations which are included in the White List of International Organization (IMO).
This order enables deck cadets and trainee marine engineer, who have undergone the training prescribed by the maritime administrations of foreign nation to obtain an Indian CDC in order to proceed to sea.
Therefore, it is required that whenever a training institute commences a new course prescribed by a foreign maritime administration, included in the White List of International Maritime Organization (IMO) it should necessary obtain prior approval from the Director General of Shipping before commencement of the training courses."
In my view, on a correct and purposive interpretation of the said notice, it required not only to a new course but also to a new batch of an existing course offered by a training institute. This also seems to be the interpretation taken by the Government of India as would be seen from the letter dated 02.08.2007 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways.
It would be seen from the above referred letter that the Government of India took the view that MS Notice no. 27 of 2003 did apply to any new batch of an existing course after the said notice no. 27 of 2003 had been issued. The position is more than clear from the reply given by the Government of India under Right to Information Act which to the extent, it is relevant, reads as under:
"Q.1. Whether a student, who has completed higher national Diploma in Nautical Science from Vels College of Maritime Studies, Chennai is entitled to get Indian CDC from your office?
Ans. No.
Q.2. 1. When a student has completed his course of Higher National Diploma in Nautical Science, but without approval from the Directorate General of Shipping by the College is the student not entitled to get Indian CDC and why?
If the student is entitled to get Indian CDC, what is the procedure to obtain the Indian CDC by the said student?
Ans. 1. Yes, the student is not entitled to get Indian CDC as Vels College of Marine Studies Chennai has not obtain prior approval from the Director General of Shipping before commencement of the training course affiliated to Foreign marine Administration.
As per Rule 5 sub rule 4 of the Merchant Shipping (Continuous Discharge Certificate-cum-Seafarer's Identity Document) Rules, 2001 - A citizen of India who is in possession of a valid certificate of competency issued by any foreign nation is eligible to request for issue of a CDC."
It is therefore, evident that the complainant was not entitled to get Indian CDC from Directorate General of Shipping since no approval from the said Directorate had been taken in respect of the batch in which admission was taken by the complainant.
If the petitioner felt that the stand taken by the Government in the letter dated 12.08.2007 was incorrect, it ought to have challenged the same before an appropriate forum. As far as the complainant is concerned, what mattered to him was that he could not get an Indian CDC on account of the petitioner having not taken prior approval of the Directorate General of Shipping before starting the batch in which admission was taken by him. The least the petitioner was required to do was to disclose the MS Notice no 27 of 2003 dated 03.12.2003 in its prospectus in order to enable the candidates to take an informed decision on whether to take admission or not, in the light of the aforesaid notice issued by the Government of India, Directorate General of Shipping. Therefore, the petitioner, in my view was deficient in rendering services by not obtaining the prior approval of the Directorate General of Shipping or at least by not disclosing MS Notice no. 27 dated 03.12.2003 in the prospectus issued after 03.12.2003.
As far as the plea of limitation is concerned, I find that the complaint itself was filed on 29.10.2010. Obviously, the complainant had a cause of action only when he was informed by the Government that the Indian CDC could not be supplied to him on account of the petitioner having not taken requisite approval from the Directorate General of Shipping. Therefore, the complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
It was lastly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that not the entire payment was made to the petitioner, substantial payment having been made for undergoing training in U.K. and therefore, there was no justification for awarding refund of the entire expenditure incurred by the complainant including the payment made for the training in U.K. Again, I find no merit in the submission since, the complainant might not have even taken admission in the course had he been informed that the approval from the Directorate General of Shipping had not been obtained in terms of MS Notice no. 27 of 2003.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.