|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a tutorial institute to compensate a student for supplying study material that was far from perfect. Pushpa Girimaji reports on the case Can
a student who opts for distance education or pays a substantial amount
to get study material supplied by tutorial institutes seek compensation
from them if the material turns out to be inadequate or contains
incorrect information? Do such complaints come under the purview of the
Consumer Protection Act? The National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission recently considered these questions and its decision,
directing a tutorial institute to compensate a student for supplying
study material that was far from perfect, opens another new chapter in
consumer jurisprudence. The order of the apex court sends a warning to
all such educational institutes to be far more careful in future with
the quality of material they supply. The order has its origins in the
complaint of Jai Kumar Mittal, who enrolled himself with Brilliant
Tutorials, for the course of "postal support coaching" for the
Civil Services Examination, 1994, and paid a fee of Rs 4,800 for the
Preliminary and Main Examinations. Mittal’s contention was that there
was gross deficiency in the service provided by the tutorials in that
there were defects in the study material and the standard required to be
maintained for the civil services examination was not
maintained. Alleging that the mistakes given in the study material
spoilt his chances to be a civil servant, he sought a compensation of Rs
30 lakh and also refund of the amount of Rs 4,800 paid by way of
fees. He said the institute was guilty of unfair trade practice as it
had claimed in their prospectus that it would provide notes bearing
authentic data and that the study material was upgraded every year. He
also drew the attention of the consumer court to the various
advertisements issued by the tutorials and the promises that they had
made therein: "Leave it to Brilliant’s professors, seasoned
veterans in the fine art of picking the relevant, weeding out the
redundant and capsulising the essence". The complainant also
pointed out chapters, particularly in the law section, wherein the study
material had not been brought up to date and had not incorporated
several amendments or changes in the law. The apex consumer court
observed: There cannot be any doubt that the complainant had hired the
services of the opposite party for consideration for which he had paid
Rs 4,800. If there was deficiency in service by the tutorials, then they
would be liable to be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection
Act. It also held the opposite party guilty of deficiency in service and
unfair trade practice. Said the court "It is beyond doubt that some
mistakes have crept in the study material, may be that those mistakes
had not affected the complainant to a large extent in answering the
questions at the time of examination. But, it is apparent that all the
advertisements given by the opposite party indicates that the study
material supplied is by the brilliant professors. If there are brilliant
professors then the mistakes enumerated above ought not to have been
there." The court, however, said it would be difficult to hold
that the mistakes had adversely affected the complainant in succeeding
in the civil services examination. The institute was told to pay to the
complainant Rs 25,000 towards compensation and refund the amount of Rs
4,800 by way of fees, and Rs 5,000 towards costs. (Jai Kumar Mittal vs
Brilliant Tutorials, Original petition no 51 of 1995). |
