| ORDER | *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**- Advocate S.A.Raut and Advocate S.K.Shah for the Complainants Advocate Smt. Vaidya for the Opponents *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**- Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President :- JUDGMENT :- Date – 21st August 2013 These 33 complaints are filed by the students who took admission in the Opponent Educational Institute for the course of Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management. According to the complainants they made grievance about recovery of excess fees and for deficiency in service as regards the quality of teaching, infrastructure, transport services, accommodation etc. The allegations made in all the complaints are mostly similar. The Opponents in all the complaints are common. Hence it is convenient to dispose of all these complaints by common judgment. Brief facts are as follows- [1] The complainants took admission in the Opponent No.1 Institute for the academic year which has been started in the year 2007 and 2008. Initially some of the complainants have sought admission for the course of M.B.A. But subsequently their admissions were transferred to the course of Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management. It was represented by the Opponents that the said course is full time course and duration of the course was of two years. The Opponent No.1 had published advertisement, prospectus and also informed through newspapers, career launcher and brochure about the said course. On placing reliance upon the brochure of the Institute the complainants have believed that the said Institute has affiliation of Pune University as well as Sikkim Manipal University. It was also represented by the Opponents that the Institute will be shifted in new building which is situated at Undri. Initially the course has been started in small flats which are situated at Wadarwadi, Model Colony, Pune. Huge amounts were collected by the Opponent No.1 under various heads such as tuition fees, computer lab fees, caution money etc. It is the case of the complainants that eventhough as per the information collected by them the course of Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management is part time course. The Opponent No.1 has represented that it is a full time course for two years. Eventhough the University has approved the tuition fees for the said course as Rs.24,000/- the Opponent No.1 had collected lakhs of rupees from them. Instead of providing accommodation in hostel the Opponent No.1 had made facility of accommodation by charging exorbitant amount and they were accommodated in private flats. The complainants were not allowed to appear for the examination which was to be held on 14/11/2009. Their forms were not accepted and forwarded to the University hence they have filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court and sought direction for accepting the examination forms. The Opponents have caused deficiency in service by charging excessive fees, not providing proper infrastructure, proper transportation services, accommodation and education. All the complainants have prayed for declaration that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service and they have claimed refund of course fees, damages and compensation, traveling expenses, accommodation and food expenses, litigation expenses. For the sake of brevity a chart is produced on behalf of the complainants to show the expenses incurred by them and their claims in their respective complaints which is as follows- Sr. | Case No. PDF | Excess Fee charged | Exp for books | Acc- mmo dation | Food | Incidental Exp. | Damages compensation | Total Rs. | 1 | 33/11 | 2,31,875/ | 18000/ | 72000/ | 45000/ | 60000/ | 500000/ | 9,26,875/ | 2 | 534/10 | 1,83,000/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,63,000/ | 3 | 535/10 | 2,78,460/ | 12,000/ | 84000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 500000/ | 9,94,460/ | 4 | 536/10 | 2,57,770/ | 10,000/ | 72000/ | 45000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,34,770/ | 5 | 537/10 | 2,44,565/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,24,565/ | 6 | 538/10 | 2,32,710/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,12,710/ | 7 | 539/10 | 2,42,265/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,22,265/ | 8 | 540/10 | 2,88,635/ | 12,000/ | 42000/ | 30000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,22,635/ | 9 | 541/10 | 1,76,290/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,56,290/ | 10 | 542/10 | 1,60,460/ | 10,000/ | 96000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,76,460/ | 11 | 543/10 | 2,04,145/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,84,145/ | 12 | 544/10 | 2,84,130/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,64,130/ | 13 | 545/10 | 1,63,835/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,43,835/ | 14 | 546/10 | 3,29,560/ | -- | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,99,560/ | 15 | 547/10 | 2,74,640/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,54,640/ | 16 | 548/10 | 1,32,390/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,12,390/ | 17 | 549/10 | 2,02,205/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,82,205/ | 18 | 550/10 | 1,56,600/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,36,600/ | 19 | 551/10 | 3,01,190/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,81,190/ | 20 | 552/10 | 2,14,410/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,94,410/ | 21 | 553/10 | 2,95,755/ | 21,000/ | 96000/ | 30000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,92,755/ | 22 | 554/10 | 2,15,475/ | 10,000/ | 96000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,31,475/ | 23 | 555/10 | 2,09,570/ | 16,000/ | 96000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,31,570/ | 24 | 556/10 | 2,04,155/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,84,155/ | 25 | 557/10 | 3,01,095/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,81,095/ | 26 | 558/10 | 2,58,060/ | 16,000/ | 96000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,80,060/ | 27 | 559/10 | 2,17,155/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,97,155/ | 28 | 572/10 | 2,34,530/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,14,530/ | 29 | 573/10 | 1,41,000/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 8,21,000/ | 30 | 574/10 | 2,34,440/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,14,440/ | 31 | 575/10 | 3,37,110/ | -- | 60000/ | 60000/ | 35000/ | 500000/ | 9,92,110/ | 32 | 576/10 | 3,04,135/ | 10,000/ | 60000/ | 60000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,84,135/ | 33 | 587/10 | 2,57,065/ | 12000/ | 96000/ | 30000/ | 50000/ | 500000/ | 9,45,065/ |
Thus the complainants have prayed for refund of money, incidental expenses, traveling and accommodation expenses, compensation for mental and physical sufferings as well as for deficiency in service and cost of the litigation. [2] The Opponent No.1 is the Institute and the Opponent Nos.2 to 5 are the Directors of the said Institute. They have resisted the claim by filing written statement. The allegations made in the complaints are flatly denied by them. It is specifically denied that they have caused deficiency in service. It is also denied that they have charged excessive fees. According to them the State Government of Maharashtra has appointed Committee known as “Shikshan Shulk Samiti” which has declared the fee of Rs.91,400/- for the Opponent’s Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management Course for the academic year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. It is also contended on behalf of the Opponents that the complainants have not abided the promise which was given before the Hon’ble High Court and did not pay the arrears of the fees. It is also denied that the Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management course is a part time course. It is further denied that proper infrastructure is not provided to the complainants and the facilities of accommodation as well as transport services, education were not provided to them. It is also contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties as there is no relation as consumer and service provider between the complainants and the Opponents. The Opponents have prayed for dismissal of the complaints and asked compensatory costs from the complainants. [3] After scrutinizing the voluminous documentary evidence, affidavits, written arguments filed by rival parties and hearing the legal submissions by both the counsel following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows- Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS | 1 | Whether the complainants have proved that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service by extracting excess amount of fee, by misrepresenting the complainants as regards the infrastructure and other facilities ? | In the affirmative | 2 | What order ? | Complaints are partly allowed. |
Reasons As to the Point Nos. 1 and 2- [4] The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that all the complainants took admission in the Institute of the Opponents for the course of Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management. Initially some of them took admission for the course of Master in Business Administration but subsequently it was impressed by the Institute that the Course of Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management is equivalent with the course of M.B.A. The main grievance of the complainants is that eventhough the said course is part time the Opponents have misrepresented that it is a full time course. As per the fee structure formulated by the University the tuition fee for the course of Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management was Rs.24,000/-. However the Opponents have collected near about two lakhs from each student by holding that the said course is full time course. It is also alleged by the complainants that the Opponents have assured that the complainants will get the infrastructure and facilities at international level but they were placed in small premises which is situated in Wadarwadi, Model Colony, Pune. Their accommodation facilities and transport facilities were also not upto the mark. They had required to travel distance of 20 kms from their residence to attend the classes. The transport facilities were not upto the mark and hence they had sustained loss due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. [5] The Educational Institutes are defined as industry in the ruling of Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Board v/s R. Rajappa and ors. decided on 21/Feb/1978 by the Apex Court. It is not expected from the educational institute in modern days to impart education without expecting profits as those days are gone long back. The State Government has provided the fee structure for the various courses which are run by the educational institute. The dispute as regards the nature of course as to whether it is a part time course or full time course is still lingering as initially as per the government resolution dated 5/7/2007 the said course has been declared as part time course. As per the government resolution dated 1/4/2009 the word “part time” has been deleted. As per the government resolution dated 1/7/2009 the amendment in the previous government resolution has been stayed such as the course has been treated as part time course. These government resolutions are challenged by the Opponents before the Hon’ble High Court and it was directed to appoint a Committee for determination of the said nature of the course. The Committee has decided that the said Course is “part time” course. That order is challenged by the Opponents and that proceeding is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court. [6] As regards the structure of the fee of the said Course the reliance has been placed upon by the complainants on the various correspondence as well as information collected under Right to Information Act and according to the complainants the total tuition fee for the said course is Rs.24,000/- as informed by the University of Pune. The Opponents have not agreeing with the same. It reveals from the voluminous documents which are produced by the Opponents that the Shikshan Shulk Samiti has been appointed for determination of the fee structure for the course of Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management and as per the order dated 20/10/2009 the said Samiti has determined that the fee for the said course is Rs.91,400/- While fixing the said fee structure the said Committee has observed that the said fee is fixed by holding that the course is full time course and it is directed by the Committee to refund the excess amount which is collected by the Opponents. Now the dispute between the parties is falling within the narrow compass and it reveals from the various documents which are produced on behalf of the complainants that the Opponents have collected huge amounts from the complainants by way of tuition fee. The Opponents have also collected the amount under the garb of medical check up, admission fee, caution money etc. As the complainants took education in the Institute of the Opponents and the Opponents are entitled to receive the fee which was paid by way of admission fee, fee for medical check up etc. Hence claim under the heads except tuition fee cannot be considered as deficiency in service. But it has been established by cogent evidence that the Opponents have collected the tuition fees more than Rs.91,400/- which is determined by the Shikshan Shulk Samiti. Hence I held that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service. [7] It is also established by the complainants that eventhough the Opponents had assured that the Institute has big premises like a palace at village Undri, initially the classes were taken in flats situated at Wadarwadi, Model Colony, Pune which were hired by the Opponents. It is not in much dispute that the complainants took education in the flats where there was no sufficient infrastructure, facilities and amenities which had been shown in the prospectus which is published by the Opponents. It is also established that their accommodation facilities were far away from the place of Institute and for that they were harassed. After considering all these facts I held that the Opponents are liable to pay compensation to the complainants for deficiency in service, for mental and physical torture as well as for the cost of litigation. I held that the complainants have proved that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service. [8] The complainants have claimed refund of admission fee, medical check up fee and other miscellaneous expenses which were incurred by them. But it reveals from the record that they took admission in the Opponent Institute hence they are not entitled for refund of the amounts which were spent by them on that count. On careful scrutiny of the documents which are filed by the complainants it reveals that the Opponent had collected the huge amounts but no specific head is mentioned in the receipt. Hence it is very difficult to determine as to how much amount is collected by the Opponents on the count of tuition fee. In order to resolve this controversy it would be justifiable to award the lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/- to each complainant on the ground of deficiency in service, difference in the tuition fees as well as Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental, physical sufferings and for the cost of litigation. In the light of the above discussion I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order- :- ORDER :- 1. All the complaints are partly allowed. 2. It is hereby declared that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service by extracting more amount under the garb of tuition fees than which is determined by Shikshan Shulk Samiti and by not providing the proper infrastructure to the complainants. 3. Opponents are jointly and severally directed to give lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/- on the ground of deficiency in service, on the count of difference in the tuition fees and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical sufferings and for the cost of litigation to each complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order. 4. Original Judgment Copy be kept in the proceeding of PDF/534/10 and copies of the Judgment be kept in respective proceeding. 5. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed. Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. Place- Pune Date – 21/08/2013 | |
