P.Suresh Kumar vs R.Vasanth

THIS matter has been referred to me by the Hon"ble President of this Commission to express my views/opinion on whether to agree with the order passed by Hon"ble Mr. Justice B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member or the order passed by Hon"ble Mr. Suresh Chandra, Member on the Revision Petition No. 2514 of 2008 heard by them, on which there is a diversion of opinion.

THE facts of the case are that the respondent-complainant was admitted to the Bangalore Institute of Aeronautical Engineering and Information Technology for the course 2005-06. THE Institute had claimed in its prospectus that it was imparting intensive training programme in a number of technical disciplines, including the Aeronautical Engineering and Information Technology. THE respondent-complainant had obtained a loan from a Bank and deposited a sum of Rs.33,500/- on account of admission fee/tuition fee/mess facilities. A further sum of Rs.2000/- was also paid in cash on 31st of August, 2005. However, despite receiving the necessary fee, opposite party no.1/Bangalore Institute of Aeronautical Engineering and Information Technology (not before this Commission) failed to issue registration card and also did not provide hostel mess facility. It was further discovered by the respondent-complainant that the Institute had neither any affiliation nor recommendation of any University or Government. After having failed to get any response to a legal notice, the respondent-complainant approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint, seeking refund of his fee etc. In the complaint, he had arrayed the present petitioner, who is the District Employment Officer, as Opposite Party No.2, as according to the respondent-complainant he was persuaded by an advertisement/article by the petitioner published by a reputed local newspaper. The District Forum held opposite party no.1/Institute and the present petitioner, who was opposite party no.2 before it, jointly liable and directed them to refund the amount of Rs.35,500/- to the respondent-complainant with interest @ 10.75% from 19th of September, 2005. A compensation of Rs.25,000/- too was awarded for deficiency of service along with cost of Rs.5000/-.

When the order of the District Forum was challenged by the present petitioner/opposite party no.2 in an appeal before the State Commission, the State Commission dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioner/opposite party no.2 filed the present revision petition before this Commission.

HON"ble Suresh Chandra, Member in the order passed by him has taken note of the fact that the petitioner/opposite party no.2 in his capacity as District Employment Officer had published the article to disseminate general information without targeting any particular individual or Institute and it was not correct to say that he had either connived or colluded with the opposite party no.1/Institute. The petitioner/opposite party no.2, therefore, has been absolved of any charge of deficiency on his part and the order of the District Forum has been accordingly modified. Hon"ble Justice B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member, in his order has maintained the order passed by the District Forum as confirmed by the State Commission in toto holding that "Students aspiring to get good jobs, rely on such lucrative advertisements which eventually betray them". In my view, it would not be correct to say that the petitioner/opposite party no.2 had issued any advertisement in support of any Institute or his article made attempt to persuade any candidate to get admission into any particular Institute. A perusal of the publications clearly indicate that these are articles and not advertisements contributed by the petitioner/opposite party no.2 in his capacity as the District Employment Officer in the weekly supplements of the vernacular newspaper to disseminate information with regard to the variety of technical courses available to candidates and the Institutes, including those at the top level in the country who impart such courses. The opposite party no.1/Institute is mentioned as one of such Institutes. The petitioner/opposite party no.2 had not received any consideration from anyone or those Institutes to write such articles. The fact that the article was in the nature of "frequently asked questions" by the students looking for admission to various courses goes to show that it was only an attempt on his part to provide as much information as possible to guide them and there cannot be any other motive behind such exercise. Further, the view that the petitioner/opposite party no.2 has failed to caution the candidates to verify the details before seeking admission is also misplaced, inasmuch as in the article published on 24th of June, 2006, the concluding paragraph states as under:- "The information given may to some extent facilitate in determining the usefulness of the chosen course. For further information, appropriate government organization can be contacted in person or through their website or at the time of obtaining application form details can be known. Best wishes."

IN view of the above discussion, I will go alongwith the view expressed by Hon"ble Mr. Suresh Chandra, Member that the present petitioner/opposite party no.2 cannot be said to have misguided any candidate to approach any particular INstitute for admission and, therefore, cannot be said to be deficient in service and has, therefore, been rightly absolved. That leaves the entire burden of satisfying the District Forum"s award on the opposite party no.1/Bangalore INstitute of Aeronautical Engineering and INformation Technology. The respondent-complainant will be at liberty to get the order of the award passed by the District Forum executed as against opposite party no.1/INstitute, if not already done.