CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.1523/2005
SH. ROBIN GUPTA
S/O SH. BIJAY MOHAN GUPTA
109/3 KABUL LINE, SADAR BAZAR,
DELHI CANTONMENT-110010
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
SH. ABHISHEK CHAUDHARY, DIRECTOR
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT,
MANAGEMENT TOWER,
W-42, OKHLA, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:13.07.2017
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of complainant is that after going through the lucrative advertisement of OP Institute, he joined 2-years full time Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management(PGDBM)+Master in Business Administration(MBA Degree). As per advertisement, the course programme is affiliated to Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and recognized by AICTE, Govt. of India. The said advertisement also misguided the bank and it sanctioned Education loan of Rs.2,50,000/- to complainant.
It is further stated that on enquiry from the Vice Chancellor, Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, complainant found that the only MBA degree course is affiliated to M.D. University, Rohtak, under Directorate of Distance Education and 2-years full time Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management has no approval nor recognized by AICTE.
It is further stated that the irregularities were brought to the notice of OP and complainant requested for refund of the fee. OP Institute only paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- vide cheque dated 01.10.05 and got his signature as well of his father on some documents pertaining to withdrawal of the complaint against OP. It is stated that OP misled complainant by giving false advertisement. It is stated that it is a case of deficiency in service as well as mis-presentation and unfair trade practice.
OP in reply took the plea that complainant was well aware of the fact that OP Institute is providing 2-years full time PGDBM course which was an autonomous course of the institute and that parallel MBA Degree was being provided through M.D. University, Rohtak through Directorate of Distance.
It is further submitted that a complaint was filed on 27.09.05 with P.S. Chittaranjan Park against OP institute. On 01.10.05 complainant alongwith his father met OP and requested that they were not interested in pursuing the studies at OP institute and asked for refund of the fee after necessary deductions for which a compromise was reached. As per the terms of the compromise/settlement, the cost of the three computers(destroyed and broken by complainant) and also the period of stay at the institute as a student etc. were to be deducted from the total amount of money deposited with the institute by the complaint. After all the deductions, amicably arrived between complainant, his father and OP and the management of the Institute, a balance sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid to complainant. It is submitted that complainant alongwith his father reached this compromise/ settlement on their free will, without any force or coercion from any quarter and undertook to withdraw their complaint made to the police and also undertook that they will not lay and claim or any demand whatsoever for anything or against anyone or any event in the past, present or future from the Institute of Management and Development or its management, and in accordance with the compromise, they signed and executed the documents.
We have gone through the records carefully.
OP has placed on record the documents showing that the matter was settled between the parties and that settlement was signed by complainant and his father and as per the settlement, complainant received a sum of Rs.60,000/-. It is clearly stated that complainant will not lay and claim or any demand whatsoever for anything or against anyone or any event in the past, present or future from the Institute of Management and Development or its management after signing of these documents.
After receiving this amount on 01.10.05, complainant filed the present complaint on 02.11.05 wherein it is stated that OP only paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- and obtained signature of complainant and his father on number of documents. In the rejoinder, it is stated that the papers were signed by complainant and his father under pressure. It is nowhere mentioned in the complaint that the matter was settled under pressure. Apart from that, if the cheque was received under pressure then there was no need to get the cheque encashed. Complainant after getting the cheque as per settlement, got the same enchased and filed the present complaint. Since the matter has already been settled between the parties and complainant has already received a sum of Rs.60,000/-, complainant ceases to be a consumer.
Even otherwise complainant is not a consumer. Here it is useful to refer to case of Bharti Jindal Vs Swami Vivekananda Group of Institutes & Anr 11(2014) CPJ 179 - in that case complainant got admission in IT branch of the OP and deposited Rs.47080/- on 12.7.10 and Rs.18000/- on 14.7.10. Due to family circumstances, the complainant could not join course, claimed refund of the amount. Only Rs.16000/- refunded. Relying upon Maharshi Dayanand Universities Vs Surjeet Kaur IV(2010) CPJ 19(SC) = V(2010) SCT 545 where it was held that matter of admission, fees etc cannot be a question of deficiency in service and barred to entertain the Consumer Dispute under CP Act. It was held by SC in Bihar School Examination Board Vs Suresh Pd. Sinha IV(2009) CPJ 34 (SC) = VII(2009) SCT 109 as well as P.T. Kosny & Anr Vs Ellen Charitable Trust 2012(3) C.P.C. 615(SC) that “Education Boards and Universities are not ‘Service Provider’.
For the reasons stated above, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
