Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
By filing this complaint case, one Ms Soma Ganguly and another Mr. Subrojeet Hazra, prayed for the following relief:
(a) Reimbursement of the 1st year semester fees of Rs. 1,15,000/- being paid by both the Complainants (b) refund of the registration fee amount of Rs. 15,000/- to both the Complainants (c) interest @ 12% p.a. (d) payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- to both the Complainants and (e) cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 25,000/-.
The factual matrix of the complaint case, in short, is that, with an intention to pursue MBA, the Complainants paid requisite money to the OP. Thereafter, they joined the college and started residing at the respective hostels. It is alleged that after one month, they came to know that the OP was not affiliated to Madurai Kamraj University (MKU), but to a different University although at the time of counseling they were told that the OP was affiliated to MKU. Feeling dejected, the Complainants and several other students lodged strong protest with the authority of the OP. The OP then offered to refund part of the fees paid by the students which was, however, not acceptable to them. The OP authority then driven out the agitating students by using force. Hence, the complaint.
By submitting WV, the OP denied all the material allegation of the complaint. Counter case of the OP is that, no cause of action arose within the State of West Bengal and therefore, the case is not maintainable here. According to the OP, mere existence of an office or sub-office of a company or corporation in Kolkata or in West Bengal does not confer the jurisdiction upon this Commission. The Complainant No. 1 admittedly filed a criminal case against the OP over the self-same matter. Thus, at this juncture, the complaint case is not maintainable. The OP denied that any of its official visited Durgapur as stated in the petition of complaint. Rather, it is stated that the as per the instruction of the OP over phone, the Complainants visited Bangalore and due counseling was done overthere. It is stated that the OP was associated with MKU since the year 2006 for its BBA and MBA programmes and had enrolled its earlier batches with the said University. However, as the MKU stopped its MBA industry integrated programme throughout the country subsequently, the OP was compelled to approach other universities for the July, 2009-2011 batches and this fact was clearly indicated to the students. The OP, after obtaining affiliation from Manonmanian Sundarmar University on 26-06-2009, instantaneously posted the affiliation certificate on the Notice Board. It is submitted further that deficiency in service would have occurred if the OP ceased to provide education, degree certificate, or any such facilities mentioned in the prospectus. But, in this case the OP was ready to provide education and all other facilities to the Complainants as mentioned in the prospectus. Complainants had given undertaking that they would not demand refund of fees paid for whatsoever reason. Therefore, they cannot renege on their commitments now.
Points for consideration
- Whether the complaint case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the Complainants are entitled to any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No. 1:
On a reference to the prospectus of the OP, we find that, it has set up four Campuses across the country, viz., Bangalore, Delhi, Hyderabad and Kolkata. The OP cannot belittle its Kolkata campus terming the same as an office or sub-office. Since it has set up a full-fledged campus in Kolkata, the present complaint case is very much maintainable here.
It is the settled position of law that pendency of criminal case cannot be treated as a hindrance to initiate a complaint case. Objection of the OP in this regard, thus, is not tenable.
Ld. Advocate for the OP though submitted that education being not a commodity, the instant case is not maintainable before this Commission. Let us state in this respect here that a seven Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors, reported in AIR 1978 SC 548 at page 583 (pr. 118) observed as under:
"In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of activity is, ex hypothesis, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry".
Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Bhupesh Khurana And Ors. vs Vishwa Buddha Parishad And Ors., reported in 2000 CTJ 801 (CP) held that “Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The Complainants had hired the services of the Respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act”.
Very recently, the Hon’ble National Commission in Krishan Mohan Goyal v. St. Mary’s Academy & Anr., reported in II (2017) CPJ 204 (NC), after deliberating upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC); (ii) Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, reported in III (2010) CPJ 19 (SC); and (iii) P.T.Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., in SLP (Civil) No. 22532/2012, has been pleased to observe as under:
“None of the above referred three cases, in my view, would apply to a case where the school is found to be deficient even in providing the basic aid and assistance which any educational institution will provide to a student studying with it. Deficiency in imparting education which is the core function of an educational institution, in my view is altogether different from rendering such basic help and assistance to the students. A student may not be the consumer of the school as far as the core function of imparting education or taking examinations is concerned, but, the position would be altogether different where the deficiency on the part of the educational institution is found in an activity altogether different from imparting education, where a consideration is being charged for such an activity on the part of the educational institution. When a school admits students for the purpose of imparting education to them, it also undertakes to render a reasonably possible help and assistance to them, whenever required by the students who is in distress….. The educational institution cannot be permitted to wash-away its responsibility to provide such minimal aid and assistance on the pretext that it was not rendering any services to the students”.
In the case in hand, the dispute does not evolve over the standard of education imparted by the OP to the Complainants. Rather, the Complainants were upset over the fact that the OP depicted a wrong picture regarding their affiliation with a particular University. The nature of dispute here is purely that of OP’s alleged indulgence to unfair trade practice. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the present dispute is a fit case to be treated as a consumer dispute.
Point No. 2:
It is claimed by the Complainants that before admission, they were specifically informed that the OP was affiliated to Madurai Kamraj University. Further, in the prospects of the OP also, there was clear indication that the OP was affiliated to the aforesaid University. However, after one month, they learnt that it was not so.
The OP stated in this regard that previously it was affiliated to the said University. However, as the said University subsequently stopped its MBA industry integrated programme throughout the country, the OP was compelled to rope in another University for this purpose. The OP claimed that the prospective students were duly apprised of the matter properly.
Contrary to the claim of the OP, in the prospectus issued to the Complainants, the Awarding Body for MBA Industry Integrated degree has been mentioned as Madurai Kamraj University. The OP, thus, cannot deny the fact that it had been vastly economical with the truth. It was obligatory on its part to disclose its actual status which it did not do.
Whether the Madurai Kamraj University Manonmanian Sundarmar University belongs to the same strata or not is not the question here. Fact remains that despite not having due affiliation, the OP projected itself to be affiliated with Madurai Kamraj University. This is a clear act of indulgence in unfair trade practice by the OP.
Point No. 3:
In view of above findings, we deem it fit and proper to direct the OP to refund the entire fees collected by it from the Complainants.
The complaint case, thus, succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The case stands allowed on contest against the OP with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- being payable by the OP to the Complainants. The OP shall, within 40 days from today, refund the entire fees that it collected from the Complainants along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the aforesaid sum w.e.f. 24-02-2011 till full and final payment is made.
