Date of filing : 21.04.2010 Date of Order: 31.08.2010 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2010 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 893 OF 2010 Ms. Swarna Latha D/o M.V.Narasimha Rao, D.No.4-5-26/27, Vidyanagar 4/2, Guntur Dist. A.P. Presently staying at- IZEE Business School, No.39, Konappana Agrahara Electronic City Phase 2 Begur Hobli, Hosur Road, Bangalore Soutn Tq. Bangalore-100. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 894 OF 2010 Mr. Vempati Kishore S/o Gopala Krishna D-No.2-112, Library Street, Dharmavaram, Kovvur Mandalam West Godhavari Dist. A.P. Presently staying at- IZEE Business School, No.39, Konappana Agrahara Electronic City Phase 2 Begur Hobli, Hosur Road, Bangalore Soutn Tq. Bangalore- 100. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 898 OF 2010 Miss. Akansha Kumari, D/o Mr.B.M. Suman, Z-1/13 Barra-2, Bye pass Rd, Kanpur-27.. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 899 OF 2010 Mr. Yadavendra Sharma, Sirauli, Tehsil Aonla, Bareilly UP-243303. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 900 OF 2010 Mr. Bhupesh S/o Darshan Kumar Indian Tent House Water Works Road, Dist. Mansa, Punjab- 151505. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 901 OF 2010 Miss Shatabdi Ghosh, D/o S.K. Ghosh, C/o Premamoy Konar Vill P.O. Birudiha, P.S. Kanksa Dist. Burdwan. West Bengal-713148. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 902 OF 2010 Mr. Tripati Mohapatro C/o Banamali Mohapatro AT;Tulsinagar 2nd lane, P/o Berhampur, Dist. Ganjam, Orissa-760001. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 903 OF 2010 Mr. Aurosish Meher, C/o Jagadish Prasad Meher, At-Panchayat College Road, Ward No.3 Post Dist-Bargarh, Orissa-768028. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 904 OF 2010 Miss Neha Agrawal, D/o Mr. G.D. Agrawal, MMBI/173, Sector B Jankipura, Lucknow, U.P.-226021. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 905 OF 2010 Mr. Rahul Kumar Nishad, S/o Mr. B.K. Nishad 6/36, Rani Ka Bagicha Purana Kanpur, UP-208002. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 906 OF 2010 Miss Jalaj Tiwari C/o Shrinath Tiwari, AT:Gitanjali Bhawan, near COD Gate Chaka Block Road, Naini Allahabad. UP-211008. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 907 OF 2010 Mr. Soumen Banerjee, C/o Shyamal Kumar Banerjee 472, DakshinPalli P.O Rahara, Dist 24 PGS Kolkata-700118. West Bengal. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 908 OF 2010 Mr. Ranjan Kumar Mishra, C/o Raghumani Mishra W No.18 Post. Dist-Bargarh, Orissa-768028. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 909 OF 2010 Mr. Arvind Kumar Kumawat C/o Shree Om Prakash Kumawat H.No.84, W.No.5, Shyam Nagar Colony, Railway Station Rd, Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan-303702 Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 910 OF 2010 Mr. Nihar Rajan Pattanaik C/o A.K. Mishra At. VSS Nagar, W.No.18, P.O. Dist. Bargarh, Orissa-768028. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 911 OF 2010 Mr. Jaimangal Singh, C/o Jagat Singh, At. Gali No.3 Shivajinagar, Dankaur Road, Sikandarabad Dist-Bulandshahr UP-203205. Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 912 OF 2010 Mr. Mohd Kashif C/o Mr. Ashfaque Ahmed S-2/346, R-12, Near Tahsil Sikroul Varanasi-221001 Complainant (in cc No.898 to 912 all the complainants are Presently staying at: Karnataka College of Management, C/o Karnataka Education Trust, 33/2, Thirunenahalli, Hedgenagar Main Rd, Jakkur Post, Yelahanka- 64. V/S Bangalore School of Business, J.P. Nagar 7th Phase, Opp. RBI Layout, Bangalore-78. Opposite party ORDER By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale These seventeen complaints are clubbed together for passing common order since, the opposite party in all the cases is one and the same and question of facts and law involved is also one and the same in all these cases. Therefore, these seventeen cases can be conveniently disposed off by passing common order. 1. The respective complainants have filed complaints under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. The facts of the case of the complainants are that the opposite party organized GD/PI at various places across the country and also taken telephonic interview. The complainant selected by GD/PI. The respective complainants have paid Rs.15,000/- as registration fee through DD and Rs.1,15,000/- as first semester fee. The complainants told that the opposite party college running under Madurai Kamaraj University, when the examination form was placed to students they were shocked to see the EIILM, Sikkim form. In the name of that University students failed to get education loan from the Bank. The complainants shocked to know that UGC recognized EIILM and it provides the course of MBA in distance learning program and the said EIILM University doesnt have any authority to run course outside its territorial jurisdiction. A public notice was issued by the UGC about fake colleges and EIILM was one in the list. The students questioned the opposite party college management about the matter. The opposite party assured that they will provide enough proof of a valid affiliation within 15 days, otherwise they will return the fee. The management failed to place the proof of affiliation and they assured to return the original documents and the whole fee amount within a week. The students reported the matter to the J.P.Nagar police. A meeting was held with the police and the management in front of the students. At that time, the management assured to pay the amount within 7 days. Many of the local news papers published the issue and media coverage was also done by the TV channels such as TV9. All the students protested in front of the college whole day for few days. But, no attention was paid by the higher authorities. After the first semester the students took admissions in different colleges. The complainants submitted to look into matter because it is a matter of future and the complainants submitted that they have faith in justice and law of the country and prayed to take necessary action and to help them and the complainants prayed for return of fee paid by them with interest and damages of Rs.3,00,000/- each and litigation expenses. 3. The opposite party has appeared through counsel and submit common defense version, since the 17 complaints have been clubbed for passing common orders. The opposite party submitted that institution is a self financial institution which does not accept any donation or capitation fee. The Bangalore School of Business was established in the year 2006 for the purposes of providing holistic management education to the students. The opposite party has adequate infrastructure for the purposes of running MBA College. It has 20,000 sq. ft. built up area with 9 lecture class rooms, seminar hall, canteen, computer lab and library etc. Madurai Kamaraj University granted approval to Bangalore School of Business for running 3 years undergraduate BBA in the year 2006. Thereafter on 15-6-2007 Madurai Kamaraj University granted approval to opposite party to offer MBA programme as well. The institution has admitted around 600 students and has successfully got job placement around 400 students. In the year 2009 Madurai Kamaraj University due to its internal reasons discontinued from offering its MBA programme throughout the country. Thus, 2008-10 was the last batch enrolled with Madurai Kamaraj University at the opposite party institution. Thereafter, the opposite party approached Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University for approval for the MBA programme. Both the Universities are UGC recognized Universities. The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University accorded approval to Bangalore School of Business as a learning center for MBA programme vide letter dated 26-6-2009. All the students who enrolled for 2009-2011 batch were aware of this fact. The opposite party has never made any false representation to any one. Without clarifying with the institute authorities the complainants have gone about spreading false and malicious information and have filed the complaints with a malafide intent to extract a refund. The complainants have given undertaking that they shall not ask any refund. The complainants have attended classes for approximate 2 months and now sought admission in another college. The complainants have left Bangalore School of Business for their own personal reasons. There was no deficiency in service. The complaints are false and frivolous. Therefore, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaints. 4. The respective parties have filed Affidavit evidence and documents. All the complainants are not represented by their advocate. They argued the cases in person. The arguments of learned counsel for the opposite party also heard. 5. The points for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainants have proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for refund of amount paid by them? 3. What order and relief? REASONS 6. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainants have paid registration fee of Rs.15,000/- to the opposite party and first semester fee of Rs.1,15,000/- has been paid to the opposite party by each of the complainants. As regards payment of the above amount there is no dispute at all. The complainants have taken MBA course for the academic year 2009-2011. The management told that the opposite party college recognized by the UGC and it was affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University. Believing the words of the management the complainants took admission and paid the fees. When the examination form was given to the students for filling up, they were shocked to see EIILM form. The students checked up the website and found that EIILM University offers only distance learning program and further EIILM University does not have any authority to run course outside its territorial jurisdiction. The UGC, New Delhi had published public notice on 31-8-2009 the list of the private Universities which are not allowed to function beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their respective states in violation of the UGC regulations and against the judgment in case of Prof Yash Pal & others vs. State of Chhatisgarh & others. In the state of Sikkim in the public notice of the UGC for the state of Sikkim at Sl. No.28. Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University, Jorethang (EIILM) is shown. In the said public notice the UGC informed that such private Universities can not affiliate an institution / college. They can not establish off campus centers beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned State. Therefore, as per the UGC public notice dated 31-8-2009 the EIILM in not authorized to affiliate an institution or college and the UGC not approved any off campus centers for the said private University. Under this circumstances the students refused to fill up the examination form given to them by the opposite party institution and the students questioned the management about the matter, ultimately the students reported the matter to the J.P.Nagar Police station about the fraud and a meeting was held with the management in the police station. The complainants submitted that the management assured to refund the amount to the respective students. The matter was also reported in local news papers and there was a media coverage also done by the TV channels such as TV9. Students protested the matter in front of the college for few days. But, the management failed to respond to the request of the students for refund of fee paid by them. Therefore, the students were forced to approach the consumer Fora for getting justice. The complainants have produced letter of EIILM dated 1-4-2009 addressed to the Director, Bangalore School of Business (opposite party). It is stated in that letter the Bangalore School of Business is an authorized knowledge hub of EIILM University, Sikkim for the students directly seeking admission to EIILM University for getting MBA degree and it is stated in the letter the authorization is for the calendar year 2009-11 and can be renewed. By letter of EIILM dated 1-4-2009 it is clear that the opposite party institution wants to grant MBA degree to the students through EIILM University, Sikkim. This goes to show that the opposite party institution is not recognized by the Madurai Kamaraj University for the calendar 2009-2011. As per the UGC Public notice dated 31-8-2009, the private University called EIILM, Sikkim can not affiliate in institution /college. The said University can not establish off campus centers beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned states. The UGC has clearly states that 44 Universities throughout India can not establish centers or affiliate colleges beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their respective states. Therefore, the letter of EIILM dated 1-4-2009 is against UGC public notice and guidelines. The letter of authorization or recognition dated 1-4-2009 is also against judgment in case of Prof. Yeshpal and others vs the State of Chhatisgarh & others. The opposite party institution can not be affiliated to EIILM University and question of giving authorization for the calendar for year 2009-2011 does not arise at all. The letter of EIILM dated 1-4-2009 is illegal and against the law. Therefore, the students are justified in not filling the examination form offered to them of the EIILM University. The students are justified in demanding the semester fee paid by them, because the opposite party institution is not recognized or affiliated to any university for the year 2009-2011. Admittedly, as per the opposite party defense version the Madurai Kamaraj University not granted affiliation to the opposite party institution for the academic year 2009-2011. In the year 2009 Madurai Kamaraj University discontinued offering MBA program throughout the country. Thus, 2008-2010 batch was the last batch enrolled with Madurai Kamaraj University. Admittedly, the present complainants got admission for the academic year 2009-11 in the opposite party institution. For this academic year the opposite party institution was not affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University. The only point for consideration is as per the defense version the opposite party institution had been recognized by Manonamaniam Sundarnar University for that the opposite party has produced certificate dated 26-6-2009. But, the students were never told of the opposite party institution is affiliated to M.S. University. The brochure published by the opposite party clearly shows that the opposite party institution is recognized by the Madurai Kamaraj University. The opposite party institution has not produced any documents or proof to show that part of the fee collected by the students had been remitted to the concerned Universities. The opposite party institution has not produced acceptable and legal documents to show that their institution has been legally and lawfully affiliated to the recognized University. So under this circumstances the students were justified in refusing to pursue their education in the opposite party institution. The students withdrew their admission from the opposite party institution and they took admission for MBA course in different institution in Bangalore. The students demanded refund of fee the management had assured the students in the J.P.Nagr police station that they will refund the amount. The students submitted during course of the argument there is a video recording also with them to show that the management had agreed and accepted to refund the amount. The opposite party has not pleaded and proved that the seats of the present complainants were fell vacant throughout the academic year causing loss to them. The opposite party has not produced any records or documents to show that the seats allotted to the complainants was not filled up by any other students. The opposite party has not produced the list of seats and availability of seats and any other documents to prove that the admissions withdrawn by the complainants were vacant throughout the academic year. So under this circumstances it is very unfair and unjust on the part of the opposite party institution to deny refund of the amount paid by the complainants. The opposite party can not take the amount of the students without giving service or education to the students. The students attended the class only for less than 2 months and left the course on account of the problem in respect of recognition and affiliation of the opposite party institution. Under this circumstances the students were justified in seeking refund of 1st semester fee paid by them. Since, the students had taken admissions in different colleges. The students will be put to lot of injustice and hardship if they are denied the refund. The opposite party will be not put any loss or injustice if they are asked to refund the amount received from the respective students. In a recent judgment the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamilnadu, Chennai in Mahendra Engineering college vs K.J. Thiagarajan reported in 2010 CTJ 91 in (CPJ) (SCDRC) page no.91 it has been held as under: Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(g)-Section 2(1)(o)- Complainants son admitted for pursuing the course in Mechanical Engineering, 1st Year-A total sum of Rs.42,800/- charged from him towards the tuition fees, development fees and other charges-Dissatisfied with the available infrastructure of the College, the boy withdrew from it just after three days-Deposited amount not refunded-Complaint allowed by the District Forum-Opposite party directed to pay Rs.34,000/- to the complainant-Appeal-Not proved that seat remained vacant throughout the course putting the College to a loss-Emphasized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in a public notice that in the event of a student leaving an institute, it could deduct not more than Rs.1,000/- from the amount deposited- Impugned order upheld-Appeal dismissed. The above judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The said judgment is a full and complete answer to the defense taken by the opposite party. The learned advocate for the opposite party has relied upon two judgments No1. IV (2003) CPJ 500 of Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, I have gone through the above judgment in detail in that judgment material was placed on record to show that the affiliation had been granted by the University of Himachalpradesh and the AICTE also granted a provisional approval, so under those circumstances the fee paid by the students was not refunded, since the deficiency of service was not proved by the complainants. Therefore, that judgment can not be made applicable to the facts of the present cases. The another decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the opposite party is IV (2008) CPJ 197 of Honble National Commission, New Delhi, I have also gone through the above judgment in detail, in that case the amount of fee deposited by the students not refunded on the ground that seat remained vacant in that year in the said college therefore, there is no deficiency of service. But, in the present case on hand the seats surrendered by the students were not remained vacant for the entire academic year 2009-2011. The opposite party in this case has not place any record or material before this Fora to prove the fact that the seats surrendered by the present complainants remained vacant for the entire academic year 2009-2011. Therefore, the above judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the present cases. The opposite party having failed to establish and prove that the opposite party institution had been affiliated to a particular University and the institution is recognized by the legally constituted University, so as the opposite party institution can admit the students for MBA course and grant degrees to the students as per law. Admittedly, the opposite party has not produced any documents or record to show that particular amount of fee or part of the fee collected by the students had been remitted to the University concerned. Therefore, the opposite party institution has played unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service. The students withdrew from the course and prayed to refund the amount. The management though assured the students to refund the amount but, no steps were taken to refund the amount even after police complaint and media and news paper report etc. Therefore, the students were forced to approach the consumer Fora for getting justice. The students have paid Rs.1,15,000 as 1st Semester fee and Rs.15,000/- towards registration fee. Since, the students have attended the classes for more than one month and naturally the management might have spent amount for running the classes. Therefore, it is not proper and just and fair to order refund of registration fee to the students. The ends of justice will be met in ordering the opposite party to refund Rs.1,15,000/- the 1st semester fee collected from the students. The complainants definitely comes under the definition of the consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Protection Act being a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. The students having paid the amount under lot of financial constraints and all the students are coming from poor and middle class family from different states. There interest shall have to be protected by passing orders against the opposite party to refund the semester fee. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 7. All the seventeen complaints are allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- to each of the complainants in ccNo.893/2010 & ccNo.894/2010 and ccNo.898/2010 to ccNo.912/2010 within 60 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order within 60 days the above amounts carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of refund. 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 9. Keep the copy of the order in connected case files. 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2010. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
