Haryana

Sonipat

96/2014

POONAM SINGH D/O LAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. DEENBANDHU CHHOTU RAM UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,2. ROYAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL MUDGIL

15 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                        SONEPAT.

                                           

                             Complaint No.96 of 2014

                             Instituted on:7.4.2014

                             Date of order:15.06.2015

 

Poonam Singh d/o Lal Singh, r/o B-111, National Fertilizers Ltd. Township GT road, Panipat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science & Technology, 50^th KM Mile Stone, NH-1, Murthal, Sonepat through its Registrar.

2.Royal Instt. Of Management & Technology, Village Chidana, tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonepat through its Director/Principal.

        ……..Respondents.

         

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Sunil Mudgil, Adv. for complainant.

          Sh.  Kuldeep Dahiya, Adv. for respondent no.1.

          Sh.  RL Singla, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

       Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she had taken admission for doing M.Tech in computer science in the institute of respondent no.2. After admission, she was allotted college roll no.12/Mtech-CSE/14 and university roll no.12018501014.  In total the complainant had made the payment of Rs.134000/- from time to time to the respondents.  The complainant appeared in both exams for both semesters. But in the mid of session, the complainant was informed by respondent no.2 that she is not eligible for the course of M.Tech in computer science as she had done M.Sc in computer science not B.Tech and this course is only for those students who had a degree of B.Tech.  The complainant was shocked to hear and they suggested to get admission in some other institution as her registration is cancelled and she cannot study here from now onwardS.  The complainant has alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their reply.

         The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the respondent no.2 granted admission to the complainant in M.Tech Computer Science and Eng. Course during the session 2012-13 on the basis of Master of Science (Computer science)) whereas as per M.Tech (CSE) Ordinance of the University for the session 2012-13 the eligibility criteria for admission to M.Tech (Computer Science Engineering)  is B.C./B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering/Information Technology/Electronics & Communication Engineering/Electronics & Telecommunication/Electronics & Instrumentation Control. Since the admission of the complainant was done by respondent no.2 in violation of M.Tech Ordinance 2012-13, as such the registration of the complainant was cancelled by the respondent no.1 as per rules after adopting the process. The complainant herself is equally responsible for seeking admission as she should have checked the eligibility criteria before seeking admission in the said course.  The respondent no.2 is responsible for wrong admission of the complainant and the action regarding refund of fees etc. is required to be taken at its level.

         The respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that the respondent no.2 got printed the prospectus as per terms, conditions and instructions of the respondent no.1.  The complainant submitted all the documents for taking admission and all the documents were sent to the respondent no.1 for approval.  The respondent no.1 issued the roll numbers to the students and the complainant has taken the examination of M.Tech Ist Semester and 2^nd Semester and the respondent no.1 declared the complainant as passed in the examination and later-on, the respondent no.1 issued a letter which is against the principle of natural justice and equity and all this was done by the respondent no.1 wrongly.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.  We have also perused the written arguments submitted by the respondent no.2 very minutely and carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had taken admission for doing M.Tech in computer science in the institute of respondent no.2. After admission, she was allotted college roll no.12/Mtech-CSE/14 and university roll no.12018501014.  In total the complainant had made the payment of Rs.134000/- from time to time to the respondents.  The complainant appeared in both exams for both semesters. But in the mid of session, the complainant was informed by respondent no.2 that she is not eligible for the course of M.Tech in computer science as she had done M.Sc in computer science not B.Tech and this course is only for those students who had a degree of B.Tech.  The complainant was shocked to hear and they suggested to get admission in some other institution as her registration is cancelled and she cannot study here from now onwardS.  The complainant has alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the respondent no.2 granted admission to the complainant in M.Tech Computer Science and Eng. Course during the session 2012-13 on the basis of Master of Science (Computer science)) whereas as per M.Tech (CSE) Ordinance of the University for the session 2012-13 the eligibility criteria for admission to M.Tech (Computer Science Engineering)  is B.C./B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering/Information Technology/Electronics & Communication Engineering/Electronics & Telecommunication/Electronics & Instrumentation Control. Since the admission of the complainant was done by respondent no.2 in violation of M.Tech Ordinance 2012-13, as such the registration of the complainant was cancelled by the respondent no.1 as per rules after adopting the process. The complainant herself is equally responsible for seeking admission as she should have checked the eligibility criteria before seeking admission in the said course.  The respondent no.2 is responsible for wrong admission of the complainant and the action regarding refund of fees etc. is required to be taken at its level.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the respondent no.2 got printed the prospectus as per terms, conditions and instructions of the respondent no.1.  The complainant submitted all the documents for taking admission and all the documents were sent to the respondent no.1 for approval.  The respondent no.1 issued the roll numbers to the students and the complainant has taken the examination of M.Tech Ist Semester and 2^nd Semester and the respondent no.1 declared the complainant as passed in the examination and later-on, the respondent no.1 issued a letter which is against the principle of natural justice and equity and all this was done by the respondent no.1 wrongly.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         We have perused the document Ex.RW1/B very carefully therein Eligibility for admission M.Tech. Courses is mentioned  which is reproduced below:-

M.Tech(computer)     B.E./B.Tech in computer science Science &            & Engg/Information Tech/ Engineering          Electronics/Electronics &                      Communication Engg/Electronics                         & Telecommunication/Electronics                      & Instrumentation Control.

 

         This Document Ex.RW1/B is regarding M.Tech Ordinance 2012-13.

         Meaning thereby, the plea of the respondent no.1 that since the admission of the complainant was done by respondent no.2 in violation of M.Tech Ordinance 2012-13, as such the registration of the complainant was cancelled by the respondent no.1 as per rules after adopting the process, is tenable in the eyes of law  and the respondent no.2 wrongly and illegally gave admission to the complainant  in M.Tech course particularly when the complainant was not having eligible qualification for M.Tech course.  In this way, the complainant due to the deficient services rendered by the respondent no.2, has lost her valuable time of education and besides this, she has to suffer unnecessary mental agony and harassment.  In our view, the complainant has been able to prove unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent no.2.  The observations of this Forum are fortified by the case law titled as Markssoft Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Singh Shekhawat, 2014(III) CPJ 533(  NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that State Commission categorically observed that question whether complainant was graduate or not was not an issue to be decided at that stage of matter, because at the time of admission, if complainant did not have requisite eligibility/qualification, he should not have been allowed admission to course-Unfair trade practice proved.

         The Hon’ble National Commission in another case titled as HCMI Education Vs. Narendra Pal Singh 2013(III) CPJ 121(NC) has held that OP No.2 was not following the approved curriculum of CHED for running MBBS programme-Ops intention was to mint money-Complainant’s career was spoiled-OP No.1 cannot wriggle out of the predicament, created by it, by saying that it was only facilitator-Both Ops were rightly jointly and severally held liable to refund fee-Unfair trade practice proved”.
         The Hon’ble National Commission in another case titled as IIIT College of Engineering Vs. Vikas Sood & others, 2013(III) CPJ 253(NC)  has held that Foras below rightly held that Degree course for information & Technology being conducted by the petitioner’s college for session 2000-2001 was neither affiliated with HP University nor with AICTE Delhi-Unfair trade practice conducted by petitioner’s college established-Costs of Rs.10,000/- awarded”.

         Taking into consideration the above cited law, we are of the view that unfair trade practice conducted by the respondent no.2 has been established.

         Similarly there is also deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 because had the respondent no.1 been careful and had the respondent no.1 timely check-up the documents of the complainant, the spoiling of valuable time of education of the complainant could have been saved and the complainant may not have suffered any mental agony or harassment.

         The complainant by way of present complaint has sought the compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, which in our view, is on a very higher side.  However, in  our view, Rs.Five Lacs would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no. 2 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.four lacs) to the complainant and similarly the respondent no.1 is also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac) the complainant for rendering deficient services, for indulging themselves into unfair trade practice, for causing unnecessary mental agony & harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 15.06.2015