OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.96/2006
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Sri Upendra Nath Deka - Member
Sri Biplob Bhorali -Complainant
S/o.Sri Nirmal Bharali
R/o Panitola, Jonaki Central Hospital
P.O.Panitola-786183,Dist: Tinsukia (Assam).
-vs-
1) Darwin School of Business -Opp.Parties
Represented by its Administrator,
R.G.Baruah Road,Sundarpur,Guwahati-5.
2) The Dean, Academics,
Darwin School of Business,
Sundarpur,Guwahati-5.
3) The Chairman,
Darwin School of Business,
The Traning House, Level –II,SF-4,1736/1,
Sher Singh Bazar,Lane-4,Gurudwara Road,Kampur ,
NDSE-1, New Delhi-110003.
Appearance-
Learned advocate Mr.A. K.Jain for the complainant.
Learned advocate Ms.Untaraa Sahu for opp. parties .
Date of argument- 12.5.2016
Date of judgment- 26.5.2016
Judgment
1) This is a proceeding u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2) The complaint filed by Sri Biplab Bharali was admitted on 22.9.2006 and notices were served upon the opp.parties and opp.parties also filed their written statement on 25.2.2008. The complainant filed his affidavit as evidence in support of his case and he was also cross-examined by the Ld counsel of the opp.parties. The complainant also filed evidence of one, Sri Nilamoni Bharali and he was also cross-examined by the ld counsel of the opp.parties, and thereafter the opp.party sides’ filed the affidavit of Sri Jitu Bora and Sri Bibhuti Dutta as their witnesses and both of them were cross-examined by the ld counsel of the complainant. After closure of the evidence, both sides’ Ld counsels filed their respective written argument. Finally, on 12.5.16, we have heard oral argument of ld advocate Mr. Ashok Kr.Jain for the complainant and ld advocate Ms.Untaraa Sahu for the opp.parties, and today we deliver the judgment which is as below-
3) The complainant’s case in brief is that, the complainant, Sri Biplob Bharali applied for 2 years full time MBA course under Darwin School of Business at Guwahati centre and Opp.Party No.1 & 2 made some false promises while giving him admission for 2 years full time MBA course at Guwahati inasmuch as it was assured and declared that Darwin School of Business was accredited to Narendra Deva University of Agriculture & Technology, U.P. and it was further declared that the university and its degrees/diplomas are recognized by the UGC. But after getting admission, the complainant came to know that, Darwin School of Business is accredited to the Janardan Rai Nagar (JRN) Rajasthan Vidyapith, Udaipur (Rajasthan) which is in fact a deemed University and UGC has not approved the study center of any deemed university including JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith, Udaipur.The UGC does not permit any deemed university to affiliate any College or institute and even opening a new campus or department which requires permission of the UGC and the state government. The attention of the complainant was also drawn that Darwin School of Business is a fullfledged institute equivalent to College, but the complainant came to know that it is simply a study centre. The complainant apprehended whether the degree awarded by such centre would be approved by any authority including UGC. The complainant wanted concrete proof from the opp.party No.1/ institute in respect of recognition/ accreditation status of it, but he was not given any information. Furthermore because of poor infrastructure, non-availability of computer laboratory and Library etc, change of syllabus on frequent occasions compelled the complainant to leave the institute of Darwin School of Business at Guwahati. The complainant requested the authority to refund the admission fees, but the same was not given back till date. The complainant also applied for Educational Loan from United Bank of India, Panitola Branch, Dist.Tinsukia (Assam) and the bank authority sent a letter to the opp.party No.3/Darwin authority at New Delhi to know whether the course taken by the complainant is recognized by UGC or All India Management Association & Industry, but the opp.parties failed to give any response to such letter, and that has created a situation of suspicion as to the recognition/ accreditation status of the opp.party No.1/institute. No deemed university can start study centre without the prior approval of UGC and that of State Government; and private franchising is also not allowed and in such situation & circumstances, the complainant became nervous and he found himself in a very awkward position as he lost one academic year in getting himself admitted in the institute of opp.party No.1 and he further lost all his future hopes. In getting admission in the institute of opp.party No.1 at Guwahati, he was deprived from many good opportunities because he preferred to the institute of opp.party no.1 in comparision to other institutes like IMS Gaziabad, Delhi, Wigan & Leigh College (WLC), New Delhi, International Management Centre, New Delhi, St.Joseph College Business Administration, International Business Academy, Bangalore etc. wherein he was duly selected for undergoing different courses during the relevant period. But because of the attraction created by the institute of Opp.party No.1, the complainant got himself admitted in the institute of Opp.Party No.1 at Guwahati. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on 17-8-05 being registration fee, Rs.20,000/- vide draft No. 286953 dtd. 19.8.05, Rs.4,000/- on 13.9.05 for hostel admission & 3 months dues and paid Rs.300/- on 13.8.05 for prospectus & application form, and in this way he paid altogether Rs.27,300/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand three hundred) in the name of getting admission in the institute of Opp.Party No.1 at Guwahati. And under compelling circumstances, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the entire procedure & system, the complainant had to leave the institute of Opp.Party No. 1 in the month of October,2005. The complainant also issued a notice dtd. 21.4.06 to all the opp.parties through his advocate by registered post, but the opp.parties, even after receipt of the notices, remained silent and failed to give any reply till date which itself amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant begs to state that in the absence of a specific notification allowing a University to carry on distant education, no institute could be in a position to offer professional courses at a place far away from the location of the parent body and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that “all these study centres which are going on in the name of education have to stop.” The complainant has every reason to belief that the institute of opp.parties has not delivered what it had promised in terms of facilities as described in the prospectus at the time admission of the complainant.
4) The gist of the pleading of the opp.parties is that the complainant has no locus-standi for filing this complaint. Opp.Party No.1 has been one of the authorized learning centres of Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology of U.P. and a study Centre of Rajasthan V.D.University as authorized by U.G.C. Darwin School of Business is a fullfledged institute which is a study centre of number of government universities. Opp.Party No.1 is a collaborating partner of Entrepreneurship Development Institute, Gujarat and it imparts non-professional and non-technical entrepreneurship and management programmes . As per Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Govt.of India’s notification Letter No. G.R. NO. F-23-1/2003-T.S. III dtd.17.3.2004, various courses for imparting training through various study centres/academic centres stand automatically recognized for employment. Opp.party No.1 is a noble institution and it was always willing and ready to impart education to the complainant but it was the complainant who was responsible for not receiving service by not attending the classes and by leaving the institute in the mid of the course without even not intimating the opp.parties. The complainant voluntarily chose to leave the institution in the mid of the course (session). If the students are allowed to take admission and leave the course in the mid of the session (course), the vacancy cannot be filled up by the institution and consequently the institution would be put to face loss financially, and as such, the opp.parties are entitled to collect the entire fees of the course. The brochure issued by the opp.parties clearly stipulated that fees once paid, are not refundable under any circumstances .The complainant had not paid the entire fees. He left in the mid of the course without informing the opp.parties and the seat occupied by him is still vacant and hence he is liable to pay the balance of the fees to the opp.parties. The Bank has not intimated them that a study loan was taken by the complainant , nor they knew about any loan. The complainant had attended the class till Nov, 2005 and was eligible to appear in fist semester examination in Jan, 2006, but he absented from examination. The opp.parties themselves paid the fees of first semester examination of the complainant, but he did not turn up to speak. Not seeking admission in other institution was sole prerogative and decision of the complainant and the opp.parties did never exert any coercion to him to make any decision. The complainant had taken admission in their institute at his own free will, and also left their institution at his own free will that too without even informing the opp.parties. It is true that the complainant had paid Rs.27,300/- to them as admission fees etc. If the complainant suffered any loss then that is for his own negligence nor for default of them; rather they suffered loss due to leaving the course in mid of the session without informing them and without paying the fees. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with direction to the complainant to pay the balance of fee Rs.1,00,000/- to them.
5) We have perused the pleading and evidence of the parties. We have also perused the argument of both sides’ Ld counsels and found that it is both sides’ admitted fact that Sri Biplab Bharali (the complainant ) applied for admission in two years full time MBA Course under Darwin School of Business at Guwahati centre (Opp.Party No.1) in the session of 2005-2007 after passing graduation and was also admitted in the said course and at the time of admission he paid to Opp.Party No.1 Rs.2,000/- on 17.8.05 as registration fees, Rs.20,000/- vide bank draft No.286953 dt. 19.8.05, Rs.4,000/- on 13.9.2005 as hostel admission fees and monthly dues for three months and Rs. 300/- on 13.8.2005 for prospectus, in total Rs.27,300/-, but he left the said institution in the month of October,2005.
6) The complainant states in his evidence that after start of his class, which started from 10.9.2005, he came to know that Darwin School of Business is accredited to Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapith, Udaypur (Rajasthan) , which is in fact a deemed university and that UGC has not approved the study centre of a deemed university including JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Udaypur), nor allowed any deemed university to affiliate any college or institutions; and opening a new campus and department requires permission of the U.G.C. and that the U.G.C. and Distance Education Council have not allowed any deemed university to conduct any course through distance education study centre, and the Circular No. F,6-9/2004 (CPPI) dt. 9.8.2005 is the circular through which the study centres of the deemed university were not recognized by the U.G.C. , and through the circular dated 23.8.05, the U.G.C. has not approved the study centre of the deemed university including JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith, Udaypur. The complainant further states that Opp.Party No.1, at the time of admission of the complainant, gave him a hand bill containing information that JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith, Udaypur is recognized by the UGC, but after enquiry he found that the said information was not true, and that opp.parties mislead him while giving him admission in the said course while their institute was not recognized by All India Institute of Technical Education (AICTE), or by the U.G.C. at all, and that Opp.Party No.1 is not a full-fledged institute like a college, but he knew that opp.party No.1 is a simply a study centre and he apprehended that whether the degree obtained from that institution would be recognized by the authorities including the U.G.C.; and on seeking information about that, he was not given said information by the opp.party No.1, and that he also found poor infrastructure, non-availability of computer laboratory and up-to-date library etc. and frequent change of syllabus, and all these things compelled him to leave the institute (Opp.Party No.1) by intimating the matter to the opp.parties.
But the Opp.Party W.1 states that Darwin School of Business (Opp.Party No.1) is a fullfledged institute accredited to Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, U.P.and is a registered study centre under Rajasthan V.D.University as authorized by the U.G.C. and is also a collaborating partner of Entrepreneurship Development Institute of Gujrat, and it imparts non-professional and non-technical Entrepreneurship and management programme ; and that Govt of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, vide notification No. G.R.No. F-23-1/2003-TS III dated 17.2.2004 recognized the various course of imparting training through various study centres/ academic centres for employment ; and that Opp.Party No.1, being a noble institute was ready to impart education to the complainant, but he voluntarily did not receive the education and left the institute in the middle of the course without intimating them; and therefore, they are not responsible for leaving the institute by the complainant and nor they caused deficiency of service towards him.
7) The gist of the pleading of the opp.parties is that the complainant has no locus-standi for filing this complaint. Opp.Party No.1 has been one of the authorized learning centres of Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology of U.P., and a Study Centre of Rajasthan V.D.University as authorized by U.G.C./Darwin School of Business is a fullfledged institute which is a study centre of number of government universities. Opp.Party No.1 is also a collaborating partner of Enterpreneurship Development Institute, Gujrat, and it imparts non-professional and non-technical entrepreneurship and management programmes. As per Ministry of Human Resource Development, Deptt of Secondary and Higher Education, Govt.of India’s notification letter No..G.R.No.F-23-1/2003- T.S. III dated 17.3.2004, various courses for imparting training through various study centres/ academic centres stand automatically recognized for employment. Opp.Party No.1 is a noble institute and it was always willing and ready to impart education to the complainant , but it was the complainant who was responsible for not receiving service by not attending the classes, and by leaving the institute in the middle of course without even not intimating the opp.parties. The complainant voluntarily chose to leave the institution in the mid of the course (session). If the students are allowed to take admission and leave the course in the middle of the session(course), the vacancy can not be filled up by the institute and consequently the institution would be put to face loss financially and as such the opp.parties are entitled to collect the entire fees of the course. The brochure issued by the opp.parties clearly stipulated that fees once paid, are not refundable under any circumstances. The complainant had not paid the entire fees. He left in the mid of the course without informing the opp.parties, and the seat occupied by him is still vacant and hence he is liable to pay the balance of the fees to the opp.parties. The bank has not intimated them that a study loan was taken by the complainant, nor they knew about any loan taken. The complainant had attended the class till Nov,2005 and was eligible to appear in 1st Semester examination in January,2006, but he absented from examination. The opp.parties themselves paid the fees of 1st semester examination of the complainant, but he did not turn up to speak. Not seeking admission in other institution was sole prerogative and decision of the complainant and the opp.parties did never exert any coercion to him to make any decision. The complainant had taken admission in their institution at his own free will and also left their institution as his own free will that too without even informing the opp.parties. It is true that the complainant had paid Rs.27,300/- to them as admission fees etc. If the complainant suffered any loss then that is for his own negligence not for default of them, rather they suffered loss due to leaving the course in mid of the session by the complainant without informing them and without paying the fees. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with direction to the complainant to pay the balance of fee Rs.1,10,000/- to them.
8) We have perused the evidence of D.W.1,Sri Bibhuti Dutta, the Administrative Officer of Darwin School of Business, Guwahati (Opp.Party No.1) and found that, in the cross-examination , he clearly admits that in the year of 2005, Darwin School Business, Guwahati was affiliated to Janardan Rai Nagar, Rajasthan Vidyapith,Udaipur and to Narenda Deva Agriculture and Technology University (U.P.) and the said JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Udaypur) is a deemed university. Thus, it is proved that while the complainant took admission in Darwin School of business it was affiliated to JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Udaypur) which is a deemed university.
D.W.1 further admits in cross-examination that the U.G.C. had not permitted any deemed university to affiliate any college or institute and even to open any new campus, study centre or department, and that in the year of 2005, their institute had played the role of a distance education programme, and that the U.G.C.Circular dated 23.8.2005 (Ex-9) had declared that JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith was not authorized to award degrees specified by U.G.C. and that by exhibit 9 notification the deemed university was not permitted to give affiliation to any college and institute. From above facts, it is clear that JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith to which Darwin School of Business allegedly affiliated is a deemed university and it has no authority to affiliate any college, institute or to open study centre and campus. Thus; it is crystal clear that if opp.party No.1 had affiliation to JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Udaypur), the said affiliation is quite illegal. The opp.parties admits that Darwin of School of Business was a distance education centre under JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith in the year of 2005. From Exhibit 9, it is also seen that UGC has not approved the study centres of JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith, Udaypur. Thus, it is proved that the status of Darwin School of Business in the year of 2005 as study centre or distance education centre under JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Udaypur) was not a lawful status and JRNR Vidyapith (Udaypur) had no power and authority to give MBA degree to the complainant if he would have completed the said course under them ; and secondly, they would have given such degree to the complainant, it would have been a non-professional degree and a degree not recognized by the U.G.C., the government authority and the corporate bodies, and in result, it would have been a mere paper degree.
9) It is already found that Darwin School of business in the year of 2005, is not a fullfledged College or institution, but a mere study centre under JRNR Vidyapith (Udaypur). This fact is also admitted by D.W.1. The complainant states that while he had approached Opp.Party No.1 for admission, then he was informed by the office of the opp.parties that Darwin School of Business is fullfledged college/ institution, but not a study centre under JRNR Vidyapith, (Udaypur), and that the JRNR Vidyapith (Udaypur) is a deemed university only. This fact is admitted by D.W.1 stating that they had not informed the complainant at the time of his admission that Darwin School of business is a study centre under JRNR Vidyapith (Udaypur). Thus, it is crystal clear that the opp.parties convinced the complainant to take admission misrepresenting that Darwin School of business is a fullfledged college/institution affiliated under JRNR Vidyapith (Udaypur), and JRNR Vidyapith is a regular university and the degree to be given by it is a recognized degree under the U.G.C.. Thus, it is clear case of fraud and misrepresentation.
10) The complainant further states that he, after admission, found no infrastructure and computer laboratory in the said institute and the syllabus was frequently changed . This fact is indirectly admitted by D.W.1. Moreover, he states that after admission , while he suspected the very act of affiliation of that institution, he asked the opp.parties to give information about that fact, but the opp.parties did not give him information about that fact. D.W.1 admits that the complainant sought information about affiliation of our institute, but we did not give that information to him. Thus, it is crystal clear that the complainant, after taking admission, sought information as to affiliation of the said institution, but the opp.party did not give that information to the complainant.
Therefore, we are of opinion that the complainant has justified ground leaving the course at Darwin School of business in the mid of the session in the year of 2005, which are that the said institute is not a recognized institute/college under U.G.C. as reported to him by the opp.party at the time of admission and the said institute did not have infrastructure and computer laboratory at that time. Thus, it is clear that the act of giving admission to the complainant by the opp.parties by falsely convincing the complainant that Darwin School of business is affiliated to JRNR Vidyapith (Udaypur) and it is a institute recognized by the U.G.C. as well as the act of not providing required infrastructure and computer laboratory for study of the complainant amount to deficiency of service to the complainant.
11) It is also found that the opp.parties admit that the complainant deposited Rs.27,300/-to them as admission fee, tution fee, hostel fee etc, and they also admit that before leaving the institute , the complainant by sending notice to them, requested them to refund the said amount , but they did not refund the amount to him. So, we are of opinion that as the opp.parties are guilty of deficiency of service towards the complainant, they are liable to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint (22.9.06).
12) It is also evident that due to practice of fraud and misrepresentation by the opp.parties the complainant had to leave the said institute in the mid of the session, which resulted in causing loss of study for one year to him. It is found from evidence of D.W.1 that he admits that he admits the complainant took admission in the institution in MBA course after completing graduation. Thus, it is clear that the complainant had proper qualification and merit for taking admission in the course of M.B.A.in other institutions also. Thus, it shall be presumed that for taking admission in Opp.Party No.1 institute by the complainant , he had lost opportunity in taking admission in the institute of management study(IMS) ,Gagiabad, Delhi,WLC(New Delhi),International Management Centre (New Delhi), St.Joseph College of Business Administration etc. is a true fact. Thus, we hold that the opp.parties are liable to pay at least Rs.30,000/- as compensation for loss of study of the complainant.
13) It is also seen that the opp.parties were served advocate notice by the complainant on 21.4.2006 i.e. before lodging this complaint for refunding the money paid by him and for paying compensation , but they did not pay heed to that notice. Secondly, it is also found that for practicing fraud by the opp.parties on the complainant, the complainant had to suffer from mental agony. Therefore, for putting the complainant and his father in mental agony, the opp.parties are liable to pay atleast Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation. Secondly, the complainant had to spend a good sum in prosecuting the opp.parties before this forum. Hence, the opp.parties are liable to pay atleast Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
14) Because of what has been discussed as above, the complainant against all three opp.parties is allowed on contest and they are directed to refund Rs.27,300/- to the complainant, Sri Biplob Bharali with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 22.9.2006 and also to pay him Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) as compensation for causing loss of study to him and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) as compensation for putting him and his father in mental agony as well as Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) as cost of proceeding , to which they are jointly and severally liable . They are directed to pay the amounts to the complainant within two months , in default of which, other three amounts shall also carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 26th May,2016.
Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.
(Md.S.Hussain)
President
(Mr.U.N.Deka)
Member
