ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. This is a case wherein a Computer Training Institute owned by Ms. Sharmishtha Ramchandra Gholap and others paid money to another Training Institute, which was authorised by the Centre for Electronics Design and Technology of India (C.E.D.T.I.) to get affiliation from the C.E.D.T.I. and also permit the students to appear in the examination conducted by C.E.D.T.I. Ms. S.R. Gholap and Mr. R.D. Gholap complained that they did not get the affiliation for their Institution, namely CIT Education, from C.E.D.T.I. though they had given the money to Mr. Mohan Madhav Raut, who was running the Computer Training Institute at Aurangabad.
Brief Facts:
2. The complainant No. 1-Ms. Sharmishtha Ramchandra Gholap was a Director of a Computer Training Centre. The complainant approached Mr. M.M. Raut of C.L. Communications to get recognition of her Institute from C.E.D.T.I. Mr. Raut thereafter sent two experts to inspect the complainant’s Institution. The complainant sent two demand drafts, each for Rs. 25,000 for the purpose of affiliation. The complainant came to know that the amount paid by her for recognition and Rs. 17,600 calculated towards the examination fees were deposited in the account of opposite party No. 2 (C.E.D.T.I.). The complainant Ms. S.R. Gholap and Mr. R.D. Gholap filed a complaint before the District Forum, which ordered as follows:
Opp. Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to refund jointly and severally amount of Rs. 67,600 to complainants with interest thereon 12 p.c.p.s. from 1.1.2000 till realisation within the period of 30 days from the date of this order.
Opp. Nos. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay jointly and severally amount of Rs. 5,000 towards compensation for mental hardship and Rs. 1,000 towards cost of proceeding to complainants within the aforesaid period.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Director C.E.D.T.I., Aurangabad filed an appeal before the State Commission. After hearing the parties, the State Commission dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, C.E.D.T.I. has filed the present revision petition before us.
Case of the revision petitioner:
4. The complainants are running a private computer institute at Mhaswad Tq. Man, Dist. Satara. The appellant, namely, the Centre for Electronics Design and Technology of India, commonly known as C.E.D.T.I. is an independent autonomous body. It is a Scientific Society registered under the Ministry of Information Technology of the Government of India. C.E.D.T.I. is having its Head Office situated at New Delhi having one of its units at Aurangabad. The Aurangabad unit is dealing with education in the field of Electronics and Information Technology. For imparting this education, C.E.D.T.I. recognises the Authorised Service Centres. C.E.D.T.I. only frames the syllabus of different courses and conducts the examination of students who appear through such Authorised Training Centres and awards certificates, etc.
5. There is no dispute that the complainants have paid the amount to Mr. Raut but it is interesting to see how Mr. Raut has represented C.E.D.T.I. about the amount paid by the complainants. It is clear from the letter addressed by Mr. Raut to Director C.E.D.T.I., Aurangabad which is as follows:
6. We have registered 140 students for CIT 25th September, 1999 Exam.
Fees at rate of Rs. 1,100 per student amounts to 140 x 1100 : 1,54,000.
We have Rs. 1,00,000 with us for immediate payment, we request you to allow us some period (i.e., 24.9.1999) for balance of Rs. 54,000 and oblige.
Thanking You,
D.D. 50,000
For C.L. Communication Cash 50,000
_________
1,00,000
_________
Submissions of learned Counsel for the revision petitioner:
7. Mr. C.P. Sengaonkar, learned Counsel for C.E.D.T.I. has submitted that they had conducted the examination and declared results. Out of these, 16 students were trained by the complainant of whom 11 students passed and certificates were issued to them. Mr. Raut was authorised to conduct the training by C.E.D.T.I. It is not the case of the complainants that they had written a letter directly to C.E.D.T.I. for affiliation and for conduct of the examination.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in II (2002) CPJ 5 (NC) : 2002 NCJ 153 (NC), Softspec Software Pvt. Ltd. v. Digital Equipment (India) Ltd. and Ors. relevant portion of which reads as under:
Ordinarily a grantor of franchise allows the franchisee holder to use the name of the grantor and to sell the product of the grantor strictly in accordance with the agreement while the grantor keeps watch over the activities of the franchisee to see that there was no breach of the agreement and the franchisee does not act in a manner which brings the name of the grantor in disrepute. In such circumstances, a grantor of franchisee does not provide services to its customers.
9. Mr. Sengaonkar further submits that when C.E.D.T.I. came to know about the mischief committed by Mr. Raut, they have terminated the authorisation given to Mr. Raut to conduct the examination on its behalf. It is clear from the letter written by Regional Coordinator, C.E.D.T.I., Aurangabad to Mr. M.M. Raut. Extracts are reproduced as under:
It is noticed that though your institution was not authorised to sublet the authorisation to any institution, in many cases you are unauthorisedly collected the amounts from those institutions posing that your institution is authorised to allow other institutions as ACT of C.E.D.T.I., Aurangabad. You are well aware that your these activities are not binding on us. Not only this some of the amount out of the said amount was deposited with C.E.D.T.I., Aurangabad as examination fees and arrears of your institution.
It is also noticed that these are charges against you of corruption and misappropriation of amount of C.E.D.T.I., Aurangabad. Please be aware that we shall take legal action against you at appropriate time and that you shall be responsible for the legal consequences. If any action is initiated by any person against C.E.D.T.I., Aurangabad as a result of your above activities you shall only be liable for the same.
The termination letter of Authorisation of your Institution shall follow.
10. The State Commission though has accepted the contention of C.E.D.T.I. in their discussion portion of the order but in the operative portion of the order they have suddenly changed the track. So, C.E.D.T.I. has not provided any service to the respondents.
Case of the respondents:
11. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the complainants before the District Forum. Learned Counsel has stated that the Advocate for C.E.D.T.I. has replied to the legal notice dated 6.6.2000 in the following manner. Extracts are reproduced.
Please note that the said 16 students had sent their examination forms through Pratik Computers, Satara for appearing for CIT exams held on 9th January, 2000 through Mr. M.M. Raut of C.L. Communication, Kolhapur. So far as the remaining 11 students are concerned, their results were declared and informed to concerned ATC. Your client has already informed you about this and that the results were known to your client. It is true that some delay is caused for issuing the certificates of the said 11 students but for the same C.E.D.T.I. is not responsible. Mr. M.M. Raut through whom your clients appeared for the above said examination is responsible for the delay caused.
Please note that the certificates of the said 11 students who have passed the CIT examination held on 9 th January 2000 are already handed over to Mr. M.M. Raut. He has given an undertaking that he shall distribute/hand over them to the concerned students of the Authorised Training Centres. The documents in that regard are herewith enclosed as proof for your kind notice. You are, therefore, requested to kindly inform your client that C.E.D.T.I. shall give the reply to the contents of your notice for authorising her for becoming authorized training centre of CIT course; as soon as the details of payment as stated above are received by my client.
12. This clearly indicates that C.E.D.T.I. was aware of the fact that Raut had collected the money from the complainant. Hence, they cannot escape from their responsibility. Mr. Raut had collected as much as Rs. 67,000. Further, C.L. Communications has issued a certificate wherein they have stated as follows:
This is to state that Ms. Sharmishtha R. Gholap-Patil, Post. Mahaswad-Piliv, Tel, Man, Dist. Satara has applied for being Authorised Training Centre of Centre for Electronics Design and Technology of India, Aurangabad.
We, C.L. Communications, Kolhapur are Authorised Area Co-ordinators appointed by GEDTI, and have surveyed and recommended approval of this unit. Their application is under process.
13. He has further stated that he came to know that amount of Rs. 50,000 for affiliation and amount of Rs. 17,600 towards examination fee deposited by complainant were deposited by Mr. Raut with the C.E.D.T.I. but the C.E.D.T.I. did not pay heed to their oral and written requests. He has further submitted that the District Forum and the State Commission have rightly held that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Mohan Mahadav Raut and the Director C.E.D.T.I., Aurangabad are jointly responsible for the amount paid by the complainant along with the interest.
Findings:
14. (a) The order of the State Commission reads as follows:
It would be noticed that although it is the case of the complainant that sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid by them to O.P. No. 1 (Mr. Raut) for according recognition to their institution, the letter in question reproduced herein above does not make reference in that behalf. Instead the letter mentions towards examination fee.
O.P. No. 2 (C.E.D.T.I.), therefore, contended that they had not received the requisite charges from the complainants for according recognition.
It is obviously a mischief played by O.P. No. 1 (Mr. Raut) in not properly representing the payment of Rs. 50,000 made by the complainants in the matter therein.
Considering all these facts, District Forum has rightly held both the O.Ps. are responsible and accountable for all the mess and so holding has passed the award.
[Words mentioned in brackets above against O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 are added by us.]
Though the State Commission has held that it is obviously the mischief played by M.M. Raut in not properly representing the payment of Rs. 50,000 made by the complainant, still the learned Commission has observed that the District Forum has rightly held both the respondents responsible and accountable for all the mess and so holding has passed the award, which we feel is not based on the facts and law.
There is no letter to indicate that the complainant had approached the C.E.D.T.I. for affiliation. On the other hand the C.E.D.T.I. found the mischief played by Mr. Raut and they terminated the authorisation given to Mr. Raut’s institute to conduct the examination.
(b) There was never any direct contract between the complainant and C.E.D.T.I. This shows that there was no privity of contract between the original complainant and the revision petitioner in any manner to provide service to the complainants, as such, the C.E.D.T.I. is not responsible for the wrongs committed by Mr. Raut.
(c) In the result, the revision petition is allowed. As the judgments of the lower Fora are not based on the facts and law, they are set aside. The complaint filed by Ms. Sharmishtha Ramchandra Gholap and Mr. Ramchandra Dattatraya Gholap is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.