U.T., CHANDIGARH

Anamika Singh D/o Sh. Deep Chandra, R/o F-25, Panchsheel Enclave, Ambala Road, Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Chandigarh (An Institution of National Council for Cooperative Training, New Delhi), Sector 32-C, Chandigarh, through its Director

              ....Respondent/Opposite Party

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by: Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the respondent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh, through its Director

              .... Appellant /Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Anamika Singh d/o Sh. Deep Chandra, r/o F-25, Panchsheel Enclave, Ambala Road, Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali.

…… Respondent /complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two First Appeal Nos. 343 of 2013, titled as Anamika Singh Vs. Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, and 391 of 2013, titled as Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Vs. Anamika Singh, arising out of the common order dated 17.07.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the Consumer Complaint bearing No.817 of 2012- Anamika Singh Vs. Regional Institute of Cooperative Management,  and directed the Opposite Party, as under:-

“Resultantly, in view of the foregoings and entirety of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved beyond any doubt the unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Therefore, the present complaint having lot of merit, weight and substance must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.

Similar directions are passed in the other consumer complaint cases, details of which are mentioned in Para No.1 of this order.

This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1.00 lakh along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of this order till its actual payment, besides paying litigation cost, as aforesaid”.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.      <!--[endif]-->       The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Party had made vide publicity, through advertisements, internet, brochures, pamphlets, etc., giving assurance about standing, reputation, success and 100% job placement guarantee. It was also represented by the Opposite Party, in its prospectus, for the batch 2010-2012, that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM), which it would provide, was equivalent to Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and recognized by the Association of Indian Universities. It was also held out, by the Opposite Party, in its prospectus that it (Opposite Party) was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Being convinced by the commitments and assurances, given by the Opposite Party, the complainant took admission in its 02 year full time Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agri Business) 2010-2012 Batch, after clearing the entrance test. It was further stated that, it was also committed by the Opposite Party, that it was having healthy relations with Vaikunth Mehta National Institute of Cooperative Management, Pune University, Pune (VAMNICOM), and considered it as its (Opposite Party) Parent-Institute.  It was further stated that VAMNICOM students were placed, in reputed organizations, on payment of the same fees, as their degrees were certified by the Association of Indian Universities, equivalent to MBA degree. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, issued Identity-card Ann.C-17, to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.4,53,500/-, as per the payment schedule, given in the prospectus, which included fees, and other charges.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.      <!--[endif]-->       The complainant completed the aforesaid Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agr. Business) and scored 80% marks. The complainant was issued mark-sheet, as well as Certificate, Annexures C-18 and  C-19, respectively, which reflected that the said Diploma/Course was recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Ministry of HRD, Government of India.  In the Certificate, it was nowhere mentioned that the said Diploma had also been recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, meaning thereby, that it was only a Post Graduate Diploma in Management. It was further stated that since the Certificate, issued by the Opposite Party, after the completion of the aforesaid Diploma/Course, did not show that it (Diploma), was equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, as was assured by it (Opposite Party), at the time of admission, the complainant could not get enrolled herself, for Ph.D Course, as, according to the University Grants Commission (UGC) norms, it allowed admission, only if the Diploma/Course was certified by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.      <!--[endif]-->       It was further stated that since after the award of Certificate, aforesaid, there was no campus placement, as assured by the Opposite Party, the complainant had to make efforts of her own, to find a job. It was further stated that by holding out the false assurances, that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, in which the complainant took admission, was certified by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, and that there would be 100% placement of the students, the Opposite Party not only befooled the innocent and immature students, but also duped them of hard earned money. It was further stated that, in this manner, the Opposite Party ruined the career of the complainant, by holding out the aforesaid misleading and false commitments. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Party, to refund the entire amount of Rs.4,53,500/-, deposited by her, on account of fees and other charges, for the aforesaid Diploma/Course, and also pay her compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment, which she underwent for a period of 2 years, but to no avail.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.      <!--[endif]-->       It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to refund the entire amount of Rs.4,53,500/-, deposited by her, on account of fees and other charges, for the aforesaid Diploma/Course, alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; punitive damages, to the tune of Rs.1 lac, for misleading advertisement made through various channels; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.21,000/-.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->6.      <!--[endif]-->       The Opposite Party, in its written version, pleaded that the complaint was barred by time, as the complainant took admission, in July 2010, and was informed at the start of the session itself, by a notice, placed on the notice board, that the Association of Indian Universities,  had not recognized the Diploma, in question, equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, but inspite of that, she continued  the studies. It was further pleaded that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT), and the National Cooperative Union of India (NCUI),  and, as such, it was liable to be dismissed. It was stated that the complainant had not approached the District Forum, with clean hands, as she deliberately kept silent, for a period of two years, completed the Diploma/Course, and after obtaining the Certificate, aforesaid, raised the issue, for the first time, that the Opposite Party made false and misleading commitments to her. It was further stated that the dispute, in question, did not fall within the domain of the Consumer Fora. It was admitted that the complainant took admission, in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, for the batch 2010-2012. It was further stated that the complainant took admission, voluntarily, and after completion of the Diploma/Course, was issued the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Ministry of HRD, Government of India. It was further stated that inadvertently it was mentioned, in the prospectus that the Diploma, in question, was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. It was further stated that eligibility and the admission process to Masters of Business Administration degree, was highly stringent and competitive, whereas, admission to the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, in the Institute of the Opposite Party was relatively easy. It was further stated that the complainant had chosen to take admission, in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, which had relatively easy admission test. It was further stated that Vaikunth Mehta National Institute of Cooperative Management, Pune University, Pune, and other Institutes, were also working under the control of the National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT). It was further stated that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, of VAMNICOM, Pune, was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Ministry of HRD, Government of India. It was further stated that the Opposite Party had already applied to the Association of Indian Universities, for grant of recognition to the Diploma, in question, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, which was expected at any time. It was further stated that this position was explained to the complainant, as well as to other students. It was further stated that no assurances were given to the complainant and other students, that the Opposite Party guaranteed 100% placement, after the completion of aforesaid Diploma/Course. It was further stated that the Certificate issued to the complainant was not a worthless piece of document, but on the other hand, it was recognized by the AICTE. It was denied that the complainant was entitled to the refund of fees and compensation. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->7.      <!--[endif]-->       In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, she reasserted all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party. It was, however, stated in the rejoinder, that even the claim of the Opposite Party, that it had already applied to the Association of Indian Universities for grant of recognition to the Diploma/Course, in question, as equivalent to Master of Business Administration degree, was untrue.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party could only apply for such equivalence, after the third batch of the Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agricultural  Business) launched by it, had passed out. It was further stated that the batch of the complainant was the third batch, and only after passing out of the same (batch), such an application for recognition of the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, could be filed, to the Association of Indian Universities.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->8.      <!--[endif]-->       The Parties led evidence, in support of their  case.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->9.      <!--[endif]-->       After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->10.   <!--[endif]-->       Feeling aggrieved, First Appeal No. 343 of 2013, titled as Anamika Singh Vs. Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, was filed by the appellant/complainant, for refund of the total amount of Rs.4,53,500/-, deposited by her, for the Diploma/Course,  aforesaid, alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; enhancement of compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment, from Rs.1 lac to Rs.2 lacs; and grant of punitive damages, to the tune of Rs.1 lac.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->11.   <!--[endif]-->       On the other hand , First Appeal No.391 of 2013, titled as Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Vs. Anamika Singh, was filed by the appellant/Opposite Party, for setting aside the impugned order, being perverse and illegal .

<!--[if !supportLists]-->12.   <!--[endif]-->       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, in both the appeals, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->13.   <!--[endif]-->       The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, in First Appeal No. 343 of 2013, titled as Anamika Singh Vs. Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, submitted that the Opposite Party misled and duped the complainant, and other students, by holding out, in the prospectus, that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, in question, was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. He further submitted that even in Annexure C-2 letter dated 28.06.2010, sent to the complainant, by the Opposite Party, it was falsely represented that the Institute was committed to cent-percent placement of all its Post Graduate Diploma in Management students, in good and reputed Companies. He further submitted that the Opposite Party, in its written version, in clear-cut terms, stated that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, of its Institute, was not recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. He further submitted that even the version of the Opposite Party, to the effect, that it had already applied for recognition of the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, to the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, was false, as it could not apply for the same, before passing out of the third batch of students, which event had not yet happened. He further submitted that all these assurances, being false and misleading, to the knowledge of the Opposite Party, put the complainant, and other students, in quandary. He further submitted that, as such, the Opposite Party indulged into unfair trade practice, by making such false and misleading assurances, to the complainant, and other students. He further submitted that since two valuable years of the career of  the complainant were ruined, by the Opposite Party, by making false and misleading assurances, referred to above, she was entitled to the refund of entire amount of Rs.4,53,500/-, deposited by her, alongwith interest. He further submitted that even the compensation, granted by the District Forum, was meagre and was liable to be enhanced. He further submitted that punitive damages for making misleading assurances, by the Opposite Party, to the complainant, and other students, were also required to be granted by the District Forum, but it failed to do so. He further submitted that by not refunding the amount of fees and other charges, deposited by the complainant, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service. . He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, was, thus, liable to be modified.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->14.   <!--[endif]-->       On the other hand the Counsel for the Opposite Party in First Appeal No.391 of 2013, titled as Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Vs. Anamika Singh,, submitted that, it was only on account of a clerical error, that it was stated/published, in the prospectus, copy whereof is Annexure C-1 that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. He further submitted that when it came to the notice of the Opposite Party, a notice on the main notice board was duly affixed, and all the students, including the complainant, were duly informed that it had only applied to the Association of Indian Universities, for the grant of recognition to the Diploma, in question, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. He further submitted that, no assurance was given to the complainant, and other students, that Opposite Party will guarantee 100% placement, after the completion of Post Graduate Diploma in Management. He further submitted that the complainant, knowing fully well that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, had not been recognized, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree,  by the Association of Indian Universities, continued with the studies, and availed of the services of the Opposite Party. She was issued the  Certificate, in respect of the same. He further submitted that the Certificate issued  to the complainant, in respect of the Diploma/Course, aforesaid, was recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Ministry of HRD, Government of India, and could not be said to be a waste paper. He further submitted that since the complainant, with eyes wide open, continued with the studies, knowing fully well that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, was not recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, later on, she could not turn round and say that she was entitled to the refund of amount of Rs.4,53,500/-, deposited by her. He further submitted that the complaint was barred by time as also bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, and, as such, liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that, the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->15.   <!--[endif]-->       The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint was barred by time or not. No doubt, the complainant took admission, in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, in the Institute of the Opposite Party, in July 2010, on the basis of misleading information, given by it (Opposite Party), that the same (Post Graduate Diploma in Management) was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, and that 100%  placement was guaranteed. It was only when the Certificate, copy whereof is Annexure C-19, which was issued to the complainant, on 06.07.2012, that she came to know that the said Post Graduate Diploma in Management was not recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. As such,  cause of action accrued to the complainant, to file the Consumer Complaint, on 06.07.2012. The complaint having been filed on 12.12.2012, therefore, could be said to have been filed, within two years, from the date of accrual of cause of action, as envisaged by Section 24A of the Act. By no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the complaint was barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, in First Appeal No.391 of 2013, titled as Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Vs. Anamika Singh, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->16.   <!--[endif]-->       No doubt, an objection was taken by the Opposite Party, in the written version, that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz. the National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT), and the National Cooperative Union of India (NCUI), and, as such, it was liable to be dismissed, on this ground alone. It may be stated here, that the Opposite Party filed an application, in the District Forum, for the impleadment of the National Cooperative Union of India (NCUI), as a party to the complaint. No prayer was made in the said application, for the impleadment of National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT), as a party to the complaint. Thus, it apparently abandoned its plea for impleadment of the National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT), as a party to the complaint. The said application was dismissed by the District Forum, vide order dated 09.05.2013. In case, the Opposite Party was aggrieved against the said order, it could file a Revision Petition against the same. No Revision Petition against the said order, was however, filed by the Opposite Party, as per the record. Thus, the order dated 09.05.2013 attained finality. Even otherwise, the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party, for consideration. There was, thus, privity of contract between the complainant and the Opposite Party. Thus, the National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT), and the National Cooperative Union of India (NCUI), could not be said to be necessary parties to the complaint. Viewed from any angle, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, in this regard, being unsustainable, in the eye of law, is rejected.      

<!--[if !supportLists]-->17.   <!--[endif]-->       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, false representation was made by the appellant/Opposite Party, that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, and that 100% placement was guaranteed. Annexure C-1 is a copy of the prospectus of the  Opposite  Party. In  Annexure C-1, the following representation was made by the appellant/Opposite Party:-

“The PGDM has been recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Government of India and recognized by Association of India Universities as equivalent to M.B.A. degree”.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->18.   <!--[endif]-->       In Annexure C-2, copy of the letter, which was sent to the complainant, on 28.06.2010, by the appellant/Opposite Party, the assurance was given to her, as under:-

“…………..Institute is committed to cent per cent placement of all its PGDM students in good and reputed Companies. The accommodation is provided on sharing basis in the hostel of the Institute.”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->19.   <!--[endif]-->       Both these representations, made by the appellant/Opposite Party, to the complainant, were false, to its knowledge. In the written version, it was stated by the Opposite Party, that it was only on account of a clerical mistake, that such misrepresentation  was made, in the prospectus, copy whereof is Annexure C-1. However, in the written version, it was denied that assurance was given to the complainant that the Institute was committed to 100% placement of all its PGDM students, in good and reputed Companies. From the representations, made in the prospectus, copy whereof is Annexure C-1, as also in Annexure C-2, letter dated 28.06.2010, it could very well be concluded that the Opposite Party misled and duped the complainant, that its Post Graduate Diploma in Management, was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, and that it guaranteed 100% placement of the students, passing this Diploma/Course, in some reputed Companies. It was, on the basis of these false representations contained in the prospectus, copy whereof is Annexure C-1, as also, in the letter dated 28.06.2010 Annexure C-2, that the complainant took admission, in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, under the impression that the same (Post Graduate Diploma in Management) was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. Since, the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, in question, was neither recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, nor any placement of the complainant, as assured by the Opposite Party, was made in any of the reputed Companies, by it (Opposite Party), it could be very well said that it (Opposite Party), indulged into unfair practice, by befooling the innocent and immature students.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->20.   <!--[endif]-->       The Certificate awarded by the Opposite Party, to the complainant, being for Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agr. Business), and not for degree equivalent to Masters of Business Administration,  if she wished to go in for higher studies, she would not be able to do so, as, according to the University Grants Commission (UGC) norms, it allowed admission, only if the Diploma/Course was certified by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, which was not so, in the present case. Annexure C-20, contains the conditions of eligibility criteria, provided by the University Grants Commission (UGC), for students, wishing to go in for higher studies. Condition No.vi of these conditions reads as under:-

“Candidates with post-graduate diploma/ certificate course(s) or foreign degree/diploma should in their own interest, ascertain the equivalence of their course(s) with Master’s degree of recognized Indian universities from Association of Indian Universities (AIU), New Delhi. (www.aiuweb.org)”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->21.   <!--[endif]-->       From the above condition, it is evident that the complainant cannot pursue higher education, on the basis of the Certificate, issued to her, by the Opposite Party. Under these circumstances, the Certificate, which was issued by the Opposite Party, to the complainant, could be said to be a useless piece of paper.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->22.   <!--[endif]-->       No doubt, the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, submitted that at the beginning of session, the complainant and other students, by affixing  a notice, on the notice board, were informed that, on account of an inadvertent mistake, it was mentioned in the prospectus, that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, in question, was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. It may be stated here, that such a notice, subsequent to the admission, having been taken by the students, on the basis of misleading information, supplied by the Opposite Party, in the prospectus, could not minimize the unfair trade practice, adopted by it (Opposite Party). Such a notice clearly proved the malpractice, on the part of the Opposite Party, that they befooled the students, including the complainant, resulting into taking admission by them, in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, on the assurance that the same was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, after paying hefty amount, to the tune of Rs.4,53,500/-. It was only a prank, which was played with the complainant, and other students, by the Opposite Party, by deceitfully duping them, of the hard earned money and spoiling their careers.  Since, the Opposite Party, right from the very beginning, knew that the Diploma/Course, in question, in which the complainant took admission, was not recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, they should not have misled the students, by making false representation, in the prospectus, copy whereof is Annexure C-1. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->23.   <!--[endif]-->       Not only this, the Opposite Party, further made a representation, to the complainant, and other students, by holding out that it had already applied to the Association of Indian Universities, for extension of Masters of Business Administration degree status, to the Post Graduate Diploma in Management programme, being run by it. This fact was completely untrue and false to the knowledge of the Opposite Party. Even then, the Opposite Party indulged into such falsehood, to further dupe the students, including the complainant, so as to keep them in their grip, for the whole tenure of the Diploma/Course. It is evident, from Annexure C-21- “Performa for consideration of Equivalence of Two years Full-time P.G.D.M. Programme with MBA Degree”, that as per Condition No.4.d, in order to obtain recognition of the Association of Indian Universities, the Opposite Party was to give a list of number of students passed out (year wise, for last three years), whereas the batch of the complainant was the third one of the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, launched by  it (Opposite Party). As such, the Opposite Party did not fulfill  condition no. 4.d. as mentioned, in Annexure C-21, as the third batch had not passed out.  Only after passing out of the third batch that the Opposite Party could qualify itself to apply to the Association of Indian Universities, for extension of Masters of Business Administration degree status to the Post Graduate Diploma in Management programme. Such occasion could not arise to the Opposite Party, before 06.07.2012. This was another act of indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Party.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->24.   <!--[endif]-->       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether,  the complainant/appellant, was entitled to the refund of entire amount, deposited by her, or not? On account of indulgence into practices, referred to above, by the Opposite Party, the career of the complainant, and other students, studying in the aforesaid Diploma/Course, was spoiled. The expectations of the complainant, and other students studying with her, in the said Diploma/Course, to possess the degree, which was equivalent to MBA, having been recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, were dashed to the ground. Knowing fully well that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, in which the complainant took admission, was not recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, a false misrepresentation was made, in the prospectus Annexure C-1. Under these circumstances, the mere fact that the complainant completed the said Diploma/Course, for two years, and, was, ultimately issued the Certificate, which was of no use to her, did not, in any way, minimize the liability of the Opposite Party, with regard to the refund of amount of fees, and other charges, deposited by her (complainant). The complainant, in our considered opinion, was entitled to the refund of a sum of Rs.4,53,500/-, admittedly, deposited by her, at the time of admission, in the said Diploma/Course, and later on. Since, the Opposite Party indulged into unfair trade practices, referred to above, they could not be allowed to enrich themselves, by retaining the amount of fees, and other charges, deposited by the complainant. In case, the refund is not ordered to be made, then it would amount to giving impetus to the unfair trade practices and illegal activities, indulged into by the Opposite Party. In that event, the Opposite Party, will continue adopting such malpractices, and unfair trade practices, so as to dupe the gullible students of immature age, by extracting money from them, on the basis of false assurances. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was wrong, in not ordering the refund of amount of Rs.4,53,500/-, deposited by the complainant, on account of fees and other charges, for the Diploma/Course, in question.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->25.   <!--[endif]-->       In Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital Versus Bhupesh Khurana and Others, I (2009) CPJ 25 (SC), the complainants, who had passed 12^th standard examination, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology, applied for admission to the College of the Opposite Party/Appellant (therein), in academic session 1992-93. As per the advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that the said College was affiliated to