Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/277/2017

PARVEEN SADOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIRECTOR INDRA GHANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Sadgotra

06 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

         (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

 

                                                          .

 Case File  No                 262/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution     28-09-2016

 Date of Decision         25-09-2018

 

Parveen Sadotra,

S/O Sh.Kali Dass,

R/O H.No.105 Ward No.12,

Tehsil Bishnah,Distt.Jammu.                      

                                                                                                                                                                Complainant

              V/S

1.Regional Centre/Director Indira Gandhi

  National Open University R.C.Delhi(3)

Dwarka/RC New Delhi.

2. Regional Centre Jammu Indira Gandhi

  National Open University) near S.P.M.R.

 (Commerce College)Jammu Canal Road, Jammu.

3.Co-ordinator PGDIS Sovet(School of Vocational

  Education and training) IGNOU Delhi.

4.Director Sovet(School of Vocational

  Education and training) IGNOU Delhi.

                                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

 

CORAM

                 Khalil Choudhary   (Distt.& Sessions Judge) President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                   Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                              Member                                         

       

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Vishal Sadotra,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.M.K.Raina,Advocate for OPs,present.  

 

                                                      ORDER

 

                         Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand, are that; complainant, alleged to have applied for one year course of Post Graduate Diploma in the Information Security( PGDIS) in  Indira Gandhi  National Open University Regional Centre Jammu (IGNOU) under enrolment No.125419914 and took the admission there and for that course he deposited Rs.8000/-as Registration of Ist Semester(copy of enrolment No.is annexed) ,According to complainant that in December,2012 he did not appear in the said examination because he did not get whole of the study material from OPs and then again in December,2013,he deposited Rs.240/-as examination fee and appeared in the said examination of Ist Semester of PGDIS and successfully cleared all the theoretical papers of Ist Semester, but could not appear in the practical exams because of the negligence of Regional Centre Jammu, as it did not conduct any practical, as well as, theory classes of the complainant. That the complainant again Re-Registered in the 2^nd Semester in January,2014 for which he deposited Rs.9000/- and late fee of Rs.1000/-and in the 2^nd Semester he applied for change of his Regional Centre from Jammu to Delhi because of lack of staff, lab facilities, practical equipment etc.and after great persuation,the Regional Centre was changed from Jammu to Delhi. Allegation of complainant is that  in the 2^nd Semester late date for submitting assignment was 30-03-2014,but he received study material for the course after 10-04-2014,therefore it was not possible for him to submit his assignment and project files. Complainant further submitted that he made number of telephone calls and sent number of e-mails to the Co-Ordinator of PGDIS and Director Sovet(School of Vocational Education and Training)IGNOU Delhi, but nothing was done by OPs and he was harassed unnecessarily. That on,22-04-2016 complainant again deposited Rs.860/-for the course of PGDIS and fee of said course was accepted, but on,25-06-2016 the form was rejected without any sufficient cause and reason. Constrained by the act of OPs complainant served notice to OPs and sent number of e-mails, but did not yield any fruitful result and this act on the part of Ops,according to complainant, constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,therefore,complainant prays for refund of deposited fee of Rs.19,000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.30,900/-including litigation charges.

                 On the other hand,OP1 and 2 filed their respective versions and while denying the allegation contained in the complaint, went onto submit that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service  on the part of OPs.The Ops have provided all the facilities to the complainant which were permissible in terms of University norms and guidelines. The complainant is himself guilty as he has never remained vigilant which is clear from the pleadings of the complaint. It is admitted by OPs that complainant successfully cleared all the theoretical paper of first semester. It is submitted that the university conducted the practical examination in time as per schedule i.e. from 4^th January,2013 to 6^th January,2013.It is further submitted that the complainant has not appeared in the practical examination not because of the negligence of the university, but due to his own negligence. It was the duty of the complainant to remain vigilant during the academic session as all the details were always available at the website of the university and also at the notice board of the study centre (copy of programme guide and prospectus is annexed as Annexure-A).It is submitted that the complainant had applied for change of his regional centre from Jammu to Delhi  and the centre was changed on the request of complainant. It is submitted that complainant received study material on,7^th of March,2014 and not after 10-4-2014 and this fact was admitted by the complainant in his legal notice sent to OPs.It is submitted that the form of the complainant was rejected as per norms as he has failed to complete the course within stipulated period of three years. The admission of the complainant was valid only upto June,2015(copy of admission status is annexed as Annexure-B).                                        

                      Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Rakesh Kumar. Complainant has placed on record, copy of enrolment, copy of admission status, copies of e-mails and copy of legal notice.                                                         

                       On the other hand,Ops have also filed evidence affidavit of Vikram Singh I/C Regional Director Indira Gandhi National Open University, Regional Office, Jammu. Ops have also produced copy of programme guide and prospectus.                

                 We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for the parties at length.

                        Briefly stated case of complainant is that; he alleged to have applied for one year course of Post Graduate Diploma in the Information Security( PGDIS) in  Indira Gandhi  National Open University Regional Centre Jammu (IGNOU) under enrolment No.125419914 and took the admission there and for that course de deposited Rs.8000/-as Registration of Ist Semester. According to complainant that in December,2012 he did not appear in the said examination because he did not get whole of the study material from OPs and then again in December,2013,he deposited Rs.240/-as examination fee and appeared in the said examination of Ist Semester of PGDIS and successfully cleared all the theoretical papers of Ist Semester, but could not appear in the practical exams because of the negligence of Regional Centre Jammu, as it did not conduct any practical, as well as, theory classes of the complainant. That the complainant again Re-Registered in the 2^nd Semester in January,2014 for which he deposited Rs.9000/- and late fee of Rs.1000/-and in the 2^nd Semester he applied for change of his Regional Centre from Jammu to Delhi because of lack of staff, lab facilities, practical equipment etc.and after great persuation,the Regional Centre was changed from Jammu to Delhi. Allegation of complainant is that in the 2^nd Semester late date for submitting assignment was 30-03-2014, but he received study material for the course after 10-04-2014,therefore it was not possible for him to submit his assignment and project files. Complainant further submitted that he made number of telephone calls and sent number of e-mails to the Co-Ordinator of PGDIS and Director Sovet(School of Vocational Education and Training)IGNOU Delhi, but nothing was done by OPs and he was harassed unnecessarily. That on,22-04-2016 complainant again deposited Rs.860/-for the course of PGDIS and fee of said course was accepted, but on,25-06-2016 the form was rejected without any sufficient cause and reason. Constrained by the act of OPs complainant served notice to OPs and sent number of e-mails,but did not yield any fruitful result and this act on the part of Ops,according to complainant, constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

                 On the other hand, stand of OP1 and 2 is that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs as the Ops have provided all the facilities to the complainant which were permissible in terms of University norms and guidelines. The complainant is himself guilty as he has never remained vigilant which is clear from the pleadings of the complaint. It is admitted by OPs that complainant successfully cleared all the theoretical paper of first semester. It is submitted that the university conducted the practical examination in time as per schedule i.e. from 4^th January,2013 to 6^th January,2013.It is further submitted that the complainant has not appeared in the practical examination not because of the negligence of the university, but due to his own negligence. It was the duty of the complainant to remain vigilant during the academic session as all the details were always available at the website of the university and also at the notice board of the study centre.It is submitted that the complainant had applied for change of his regional centre from Jammu to Delhi  and the centre was changed on the request of complainant. It is submitted that complainant received study material on,7^th of March,2014 and not after 10-4-2014 and this fact was admitted by the complainant in his legal notice sent to OPs.It is submitted that the form of the complainant was rejected as per norms as he has failed to complete the course within stipulated period of three years. The admission of the complainant was valid only upto June,2015.

                     Before heading further, it is to be noted that since parties have lead evidence in the shape of evidence affidavits, which are much or less reproduction of contents of their respective pleadings,therefore,we do not feel it necessary to represent the same again and if need arises, same would be referred hereinafter at appropriate stage.

                 After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumer as per the purport of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and Ops are the service providers having failed in their statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumer. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of his grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

                      On the other hand, in support of his allegations that complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.19,000/- complainant placed on record copies of receipts of deposit.  At the same time, complainant has also placed on record copies of communications and copy of legal notice and perusal whereof reveals that the complainant repeatedly approached OPs for redressal of his grievance. Therefore we have no reason to discard with the prayer made by complainant for refund of deposited amount of Rs.19,000/- in view of supportive material placed on record.

                   So legally speaking it is proved from all corners in the case that the complainant has been consumer as per the provisions in the Act and the OPs have been proved as deficient in providing adequate and fair service for which the complainant needs to be compensated with adequate compensation. Accordingly the best and befitting course which the Forum feels as adequate step to redress the grievance of complainant,OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund an amount of Rs.19,000/-(i.e. the fees deposited by the complainant). The OPs are jointly and severally further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and also pay Rs.5000/-as litigation charges. The OPs shall comply the order jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum.Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

  Order per President                                              Khalil Choudhary

                                                                     (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                          President

Announced                                                         District Consumer Forum

25-09-2018                                                                Jammu.

Agreed by                                                               

      

Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                               

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member