STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.339 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution:20.09.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  :22.03.2011

G.G.S. Polytechnic College, Kharar, District Mohali through its Principal.

……Appellant.

V e r s u s

Sh. Dheeraj Chawla son of Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Student of Mechanical Engineering in G.G.S. Polytechnic, Kharar, Distt. Mohali.

              ....Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. Avinash Arora, Incharge (Legal Cell), for the appellant.                         None for the respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

                    This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the OPs against the order dated 13.7.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and Appellant/OP No.2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lacs to the complainant as compensation besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which OPs No.2 was made liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.2 Lacs along with interest @18% per annum from the date of the order till actual realization.

2.                 Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he completed his matriculation from P.C. Senior Secondary School, Pinjore (Panchkula) in 2005-2006 but did not pass in one subject i.e. Science and Technology.  As per the complainant, when he was pursuing his Class XII, he was granted admission by OP No.2/Appellant under Management Quota Seat for Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. As per the complainant, the required qualification laid down in the brochure by OP No.2 was Matric. The admission granted by OP No.2 was provisional subject to clearing of science subject in the supplementary examination. It was averred that the complainant passed the said examination but the result was declared by OP No.3 on the internet only on 20.12.2008. Thereafter, the complainant with the result of Science subject approached OP No.2/Appellant for permitting him to appear in the first semester examination starting from 2.1.2009 but OP No.2/Appellant refused to accept his application on the ground that the last date of filing examination form was over. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a Civil Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court and vide its interim order dated 24.12.2008, the Hon’ble High Court permitted the complainant to appear in the First Semester Diploma in Mechanical Engineering subject to final decision of the petition. The writ petition of the complainant was eventually dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide its judgment dated 7.7.2009. After the dismissal of the writ petition by the Hon’ble High Court, the complainant had filed the present complaint.

3.                 OP No.1 in its reply pleaded that the cut off date for admission to the Mechanical Engineering Diploma Course was 31.10.2009 and the complainant was not having the requisite educational qualification on this date and therefore, he was ineligible for admission as per notification dated 24.3.2008. It was also pleaded that OP No.2/Appellant on its own provisionally admitted the complainant under the Management Quota Seat in July 2008 through he was not eligible for the same. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                 OP No.2/Appellant, in its reply, referring to the notification of AICTE as well as eligibility criteria for JET, pleaded that the complainant chose to get admission in the Management Quota Seat of his own free will and he was aware that his admission was provisional only. It was next asserted that as the result of the complainant in the Science subject of Matriculation Class was declared after the last date of filing examination form, no fault could be attributed to OP No.2 for refusing to allow the petitioner to sit in the examination. As per this OP, since the complainant did not submit his result on time, his provisional admission stood automatically cancelled. Pleading no deficiency on its part, this OP also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                 The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

6.                 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 13.7.2010 as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment.

7.                 The OP No.2/Appellant has challenged the impugned order through this appeal.

8.                 We have heard Sh. Avinash Arora, Incharge (Legal Cell) on behalf of the Appellant and have gone through the record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant to argue the appeal.

9.                 Sh. Avinash Arora, Incharge (Legal Cell) has argued for the appellant that the complainant very well knew that he was not qualified to be admitted to the Polytechnic Course but was helped by the OP/Appellant and this admission was provisional one but he failed to clear the test by the due date and therefore, his candidature could not be sent to the Board for regular examination. His contention is that it happened only due to the fault of the complainant/respondent whereas there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2/appellant. He further contended that otherwise also, the amount of Rs.2 Lacs as compensation for a young boy who is not even a Matriculate was too hefty to be maintained.           

10.               Annexure C-2 is the Brochure issued by the Appellant/OP No.2. The eligibility for admission has been mentioned to be: -

a)      Matric passed from any recognized board.

b)    Direct admission to 3^rd Semester/2 years; ITI-1 year/10+2 with vocational courses passed from recognized board.

                    This much is admitted by the Appellant/OP No.2 that the complainant was not  Matric pass on the date, he was admitted. Their contention is that he was given provisional admission but he has not been able to produce any rules, regulations or a provision in their own brochure allowing provisional admission of a candidate who did not qualify the eligibility criteria. If such a provision has been introduced subsequently, the appellant cannot take benefit thereof. It shows that the admission of the complainant done by the OP was wrong, contrary to the regulations and was bad in law. When the OPs in contravention of their own Brochure and contrary to the requirements of the eligibility criteria, admit a student to satisfy their own greed of fee to be obtained from such a person, they lost sight of the fact that they were not only wasting the time and money of the respondent/complainant but by giving him prospectus of a bright carrier, were dashing his hopes and were rather plunging him into litigation. This was precisely the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2/appellant. It is also argued by Sh. Avinash Arora that selections are made in the colleges or universities from the Final Year students and provisional admissions are given on humanitarian grounds and therefore, no deficiency in service should be attributed to the OP No.2/appellant if they did the same. This argument also cannot succeed. There is huge difference between the selection to be made from the Final Year students and admission to be made to the course of ineligible persons. The making of selection presupposes that the selected person would qualify the test and only thereafter, he would be given the job but in the present case, OP/appellant had already admitted him to the course when the complainant was not eligible to be admitted.

11.               Sh. Avinash Arora has also argued that the complainant remained admitted in their institute only for three months, he was not even a matriculate and therefore, amount of Rs.2 Lacs as compensation is on the higher side. The learned District Forum has not given any reasons as to how the amount of compensation was assessed by it. We are, however, of the opinion that the wastage of time and money by the complainant in attending the OP No.2 Institute coupled with the fact that his hopes were dashed must have weighed with the learned District Forum. Apart from that, the complainant had to file a Civil Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court as a result of which he was permitted to appear in the First Semester  Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Examination as per order dated 24.12.2008 of Hon’ble High Court. Thereafter, he pursued the said writ petition till it was dismissed on 7.7.2009. It was, therefore, not a period of only three months as alleged by the OP No.2/appellant, which was wasted by the complainant/respondent due to wrong act on their part but he was under mental tension and harassment upto 7.7.2009 and even thereafter till date. The entire problem was created by the OP/Appellant due to a wrong act on their part. The complainant had claimed a compensation of Rs.6 Lacs as per details given in Para No.11 of the complaint. However, the facts and circumstances of the case in view, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the compensation is reduced to Rs.1 Lac.

12.               We accordingly partly allow the appeal, modify the impugned order dated 13.7.2010 and reduce the amount of compensation from Rs.2 Lacs to Rs.1 Lac. With this modification, the present appeal is disposed of.

13.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

22^nd March 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.339 of 2010)

Argued by:            Sh. Avinash Arora, Incharge (Legal Cell), for the appellant.                         None for the respondent.

Dated the 22^nd day of March, 2011.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been partly allowed.

Ad/-