DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.235/2009
Sh. Hari Prakash
S/o Sh. R. P. Sharma
R/o WZ-A-99, Street No.16,
Hastal Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059 ….Complainant
Versus
Clinical Research Education and Management
Academy (Crema)
Through its Principal,
632, West End Marg, Lane No.3,
Saidulajaib, New Delhi-30 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 16.03.2009 Date of Order : 12.09.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Naina Bakshi
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant who qualified BDS in the year 2007 wants to enhance his knowledge of medicines, advance and innovative technical breakthrough taking place in the filed, while surfing online came to know of the OP which is an institute and of the course being offered by it designed as Advance P. G. diploma in Clinical Research. The complainant visited the OP institute at Saidualajaib, New Delhi and met marketing head Ms. Aloknanda Chatterjee and Sh. Surender who explained him the purpose, scope, objectives and benefits of the course and also apprised him that the total fee for the course was Rs.2,90,000/-. As the fee was on higher side the OP advised to the complainant to take the loan financed by some nationalized/private bank and stated that they have tied up collaboration with HDFC Bank and CREDILA (a private financed body). The complainant found the option was workable and paid Rs.800/- as examination fee and he was declared successful. At the time of admission the OP asked the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- favouring OP institute towards security for securing admission and assured that the said cheque will not be meant to be presented for encashment but was only taken as security deposit and once his loan gets financed the same would be returned back to him and further in the event if the complainant fails to secure a loan from the bank/private finance body the same would be returned to him and his admission will be cancelled. Thereafter, the complainant was regularly in touch with the agent/official of the bank for processing his loan file but his loan has been rejected. It is submitted that the complainant immediately informed the OP about the rejection of the loan file and asked them about his future with them as a student but now the complainant received totally indifferent manner and treatment by the OP and was asked to wait but no satisfactory reply was given by the OP as he was unable to arrange the necessary loan facility from the outside. It is submitted that the complainant felt betrayed and was left shocked and surprised by the sudden reply and approached another bank but failed to secure loan from any bank. It is submitted that the OP encashed the cheque of Rs.30,000/- handed over by the complainant without his information/consent and knowledge and despite express understanding of the parties and undertaking given by the OP that the same would not be presented for encashment and being taken as security and in any event, be returned to the complainant once his loan has been loaned by some bank or otherwise. The complainant protested and requested the OP to refund the amount but the officials of the OP refused to refund and simply told him that Rs.30,000/- has been adjusted towards fee and other arrangements. It is submitted that the complainant never deposited the said cheque towards fee and the same was only given as an instrument of security and by encashing the same the OP has committed a breach of trust and cheated the complainant. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP to refund to the complainant cheque amount of Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of encashment till its payment.
- Direct the OP to pay to the complainant suitable compensation for harassment and suffered by the complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay to the complainant cost of proceedings of the complaint.
OP in its written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant was interested in taking the diploma course in medical research and for the said purpose the complainant approached the OP and asked about the benefits of the said course, namely, APGCDR (Advanced Post Graduate Diploma in Clinical Research). It was explained to the complainant regarding benefits, scope and purpose of the said course and the admission for a post graduate course of CREMA is a mater of solicitation by the applicant and follows a laid down procedure, including the “terms and conditions” prescribed by the OP institute and these terms and conditions are furnished to all applicants before they submit the application from. These terms and conditions are binding on the applicants. The complainant was fully comprehending and understood the said terms and conditions. It is denied that the complainant ever told the OP or any of the representative that he would not able to pay the required fee of Rs.2,90,000/- as alleged. It is submitted that the OP as a gesture of courtesy referred the name of the HDFC Bank & CREDILA Finance, to the complainant for the purpose of availing the course loan. The OP acted as a facilitator between the complainant and the bank/finance institution. The bank/financial institute and the OP are both distinct and separate institutions and there is no obligation on the part of the OP to assure and ensure loan to the applicant. There is no privity between the complainant and OP as far as loan is concerned. It is submitted that that the complainant out of his own free will and independent decision decided to join the said course and as such he had filled the application form after fully comprehending the terms of the said form and had appeared in the entrance examination held by the OP on 20.08.08. It is submitted that the complainant had dully understood the declaration written in the said application as under:-
“ declare that the information provided in this form is true and complete in every detail. I acknowledge that CREMA reserves the right, at any stage, to vary on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information. I am fully aware of the conditions relating to my application as mentioned in the terms and conditions. I agree to fully abide by them.”
It is submitted that the complainant had infact paid Rs.800/- towards the cost of the prospectus and not towards the examination fee. It is stated that the complainant as per the terms and conditions had to deposit fee of Rs.2,90,000/- within 15 days from the registration. It is also denied that the complainant was ever asked by the OP or any of its representative to deposit any security cheque or otherwise. The said amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid by the complainant towards registration fee the said course taken by the complainant and not towards security deposit for securing the admission. It is submitted that clause 4 of the said application form signed and filled by the complainant specifically mention about the non-refundable nature of registration fee which provides as under:-
“The selected candidate will be required to pay registration and Course Fee. Payment of Registration fees secures admission for the selected candidates. He/She is allowed to pay the Course fee within 15 days thereafter. Default in payment of Course fee will result in the cancellation of selection and in that case, Registration fees will be forfeited. Payment of total Course fees entitles the student to undergo the CREMA course fee for the mentioned during duration including course material and evaluation. Fee indicated below are inclusive of taxes as applicable currently. The student will be liable to pay additional amount towards any further taxation if and when notified by the government consequently. Fees once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances.
It is submitted that the OP does not take any security amount from the student as the averments made by the complainant are false and frivolous. It is submitted that the complainant after taking registration of the course, the complainant want to avail educational loan and as such gesture of curtsy assisted the complainant in making contacts with Mr. Gaurav from HDFC Bank and Mr. Sanjay from CREDILA. It is submitted that finance institutions finances the loan to its customer on the basis of the credit worthiness of its customer and the OP has no concern with it. It is denied that the OP has the knowledge about rejection of the loan to the complainant. It is denied that the complainant ever informed the OP that the finance institution has rejected the loan of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant had duly attended the classes with the OP on 11,12,15,16,17,23,25, & 30th September, 2008. The conduct of the complainant during September, 2008 demonstrates his intention to pursue the course. However, thereafter he stopped attending the classes. It is further mentioned that the complainant had even not deposited the required course fee of Rs.2,90,000/-with the OP institution and kept assuring that the balance fee shall be paid by the complainant very soon. Suddenly in the month of October, 2008 the complainant approached the OP and asked for the refund and cancellation of the admission. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed replication reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Dr. Sachin Mamocha, Authorized Representative has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.
No written arguments have been filed on behalf of the OP.
We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Complainant has filed the payment receipt of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.30,000/-. We mark the same as Annexure-1 for the purpose of proper identification. The OP vide letter dated 20.08.08 issued a selection letter to the complainant as Annexure-II. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 07.11.08 as Annexure-III. The OP vide letter dated 20.11.08 replied the legal notice as Annexure-IV.
Admittedly, the complainant had applied for admission in one year Advanced Post Graduate Diploma in Clinical Research in the year 2008 and paid Rs. 8000/- plus Rs.30,000/- to the OP. The complainant attended 8 classes in the month of September, 2008. The complainant applied for loan for fees which was not approved by the bank/financial institutions. The complainant requested the OP to refund the security amount deposited with them but the OP refused to refund the same. The complainant if for any reason whatsoever, the complainant did not or could not pursue the said programme the OP was just entitled to forfeit some amount from the amount already paid by the complainant to the OP. Therefore, not refunding the remaining amount by the OP to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, OP was deficient in service and also adopted unfair trade practice while not refunding the amount to the complainant.
Accordingly, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service. We allow the complaint to that extent and direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% a.m. from the date of filing the complaint till realization and Rs.10,000/- for compensation for harassment and mental agony undergone by the complainant including litigation expenses.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs.9% per annum on the amount of Rs.25,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 12.09.2018.
Devendra
