Delhi

StateCommission

A/09/620

RAI UNIVERSITY AND OTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANKUR KAPOOR - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Argument: 28.01.2016

Date of Decision: 03.02.2016

 

First Appeal-620/2009

(Arising out of the order dated 32/2007 passed by the

District Forum, Qutub Institutional Area, X, New Delhi)

 

        In the Matter of:

               

                1. Rai University

                Mona, VIP Road,

                (Touching  the Airport)

                Raipur-492015

 

                2. Rai Foundation

                A-14, M.C.I.E.,

                New Delhi- 110044

 

……Appellants     Versus   Ankur Kapoor, A-3/61, Second Floor, MIG Flat, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi-110085                                                                               …….Respondent

CORAM

  O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

  (S.C. Jain, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.             The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 10.07.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X in complaint case no. 32/2007 directing it to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant/respondent towards refund of tuition fee, mental agony and harassment as well as costs of litigation.

2.             The complainant had taken admission in three years Film and Direction Course by paying Rs. 5,600/- towards security money. He also paid Rs. 30,000/- on each occasions i.e. 30.07.2003, 23.01.2004, 28.06.2004, 13.12.2004 ad 03.09.2005. Appellant intimated him vide letter dated 19.03.2005 of February 2005 that Hon’ble Supreme Court had derecognised the university and that either Pt. Ravi Shankar University or I.P. University would award degrees to the students. In July 2005 there was no faculty to teach students. In September 2006 the appellant raised fresh demand of Rs. 30,000/- to award diploma from Punjab University. Although, he was admitted in 3 three year degree course. Hence, the complainant sought refund of Rs. 1,5000/- paid by him as fees and Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of wastage/loss of three precious years.

3.             The defence of the appellant was that Hon’ble Supreme Court terminated the recognition of appellant due to deficiencies. Few sections of Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam 2002 were held ultra virus as a result of which all the universities set up under the said Act became null and void. The Supreme Court directed state of Chhattisgarh to affiliate students of all such Universities and provide degrees from Pandit Ravi Shankar University. The state not only filed a writ but sought clarification from Supreme Court which gave liberty to the appellant to seek affiliation from respective State Universities where its State centres were located. The appellant offered lateral entry to the complainant in institute of advance studies in Education but complainant refused.

4.             The District Forum found that at the time of admission appellant never disclosed whether the universities was recognised by UGC or not. The same amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was allowed.

5.             In appeal the contention of the appellant is that appellant was deemed university, the judgment of the Supreme Court came after the respondent took admission. So the non recognition was beyond the control of the appellant.

6.             The respondent was served by publication in Vir Arjun dated 14.01.2014 and Statesman dated 15.01.2014 but did not appear.

7.             We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The counsel for the appellant has righty pointed out that in view of the changed circumstances due to decision of the Supreme Court, the respondent could not complete the course. Otherwise, the appellant was a deemed university and there was no misrepresentation at the time of giving admission. Thus, it cannot be blamed for deficiency in service. The bonafide of the appellant is clear from the fact that it applied to the concerned state universities very next date i.e. 08.09.2005. The order of the Supreme Court was passed on 07.09.2005. The appellant applied to Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak and got affiliation vide letter dated 31.07.2007. Appellant approached All India Council of Technical Education to grant one time approval for affiliation of its students which was allowed vide letter dated 31.10.2005.

8.             Moreover, by now, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that education is not a commodity and the institutions do not provide any service so they are not amenable to Consumer Court. In this regard reliance can be placed on Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (II) SCC 159 and revision petition no. 4335/14 titled as Mayank Tiwari Vs. FIITJEE Ltd. decided by National Commission on 08.12.2014.

9.             In view of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and impugned order is set aside. Respondent is given liberty to seek his remedy in civil court after excluding the time spent in the present proceedings as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.

                One copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of costs and one copy be sent to District Forum for information.

                File be consigned to record room.  

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S.C. Jain)

Member