Delhi

North East

CC/465/2012

Shri Sachinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director Singhania University - Opp.Party(s)

01 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.465 of 2012

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Sachinder Kumar S/o Shri Deshraj R/o H.No. D-314, Gali No. 16, Gokalpur (East), Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.       3.         4.	Director Singhania University Training Placement & Cooperation Centre V.P.O. NIzampur (Ghevra) Delhi-110081   Vice Chancellor, Singhania University Pancheri Beri (Jhunjhunu), Rajasthan- 333 515   Regional Director National Council for Teacher Education Hans Bhawan Wing – 2, 1 Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi   Chairman University Grant Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi-110002	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	27.12.2012
	DATE OF DECISION      :	01.09.2017

 

Harpreet Kaur, Member:-

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by Shri Sachinder Kumar against Director, Singhania University (OP1), Vice Chancellor, Singhania University (OP2), Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education (OP3) and Chairman, University Grant Commission (OP4). As per complaint, the complainant had joined B.Ed. course in the year 2010-2011 with OP2. While admission, the complainant was informed that the university was established under section 2 of University Grant Commission Act 1956. It was further informed to the complainant that the degree issued by OP2 was valid and didn’t need recognition from National council for Teacher Education. The complainant has stated that OP has played a fraud by enrolling him in a non-recognized B.Ed. Course thereby wasting his two precious years. It is also stated that OP had deliberately concealed the facts of non-recognition from the students. Hence, the complainant has sought refund of Rs. 51,100/-, Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and mental harassment with Rs. 15,000/- for litigation expenses. The complainant has annexed admission receipt dated 15.03.2011 for Rs. 18,000/-, Admission receipt dated 16.12.2010 for Rs. 33,100/-, marksheet with date of issue as 16.06.2011 and acknowledgement receipt with complainant.
2. Notice of complaint was served upon OPs but none appeared on behalf of OP1 & OP2 despite service.
3. Written statement on behalf of OP3 was filed wherein it was stated that the National Council for Teacher Education was constituted under the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system. Reference was given to section 2, Chapter IV, Section 15, Section 16 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, explaining the procedure and eligibility for getting recognition. It was stated in their reply that Singhania University, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan had never applied to Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education for grant of recognition for running B.Ed. course. Therefore, OP1 & OP2 didn’t have recognition to conduct B.Ed. or any other teacher training course. It was also stated that as per provision 17(4) of National Council for Teacher Education Rules and Act, `an institution offering a course or training in teacher education before the  appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification  in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purpose of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University or in any school, College or other education body aided by the Central Government or any State Government. It was submitted that the dispute was between the complainant and OP1 & OP2, thus there was no liability of OP3.
4. Reply on behalf of OP4 was filed wherein it was stated that the University Grant Commission had been constituted under the provisions of University Grants Commission, Act 1956 with the purpose of coordination and determination of standards in the universities. Section 2-F, section 3, Section 22 (1), section 23, section 24 were referred, explaining the provisions relating to the Act.  It was stated that OP2 had been established by an Act of State Legislature of Rajasthan as a private university and was empowered to award degrees as specified under section 22 of University Grant Commission Act at its main campus in regular mode with the approval of Statutory Bodies / Councils. It was further submitted that OP1 & OP2 could conduct B.Ed. course in Regular mode at its main campus only with prior permission/ approval of National Council for Teacher Education. Copy of University Grant Commission’s Public Notice dated 23.04.2007 was annexed as Annexure R1, copy of University Grant Commission letter dated 04.06.2007 was annexed as annexed R2. Copy of University Grant Commission letter dated 27.06.2007 was annexed as R3 with the written statement.
5. In Rejoinder to reply filed by OP3 and OP4 the contents of the complaint were reiterated and it was stated that OP1 & OP2 had committed fraud upon complainant which was obvious from the reply filed by OP3 and OP4.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant. It was stated by counsel for OP3 and OP4 that they didn’t wish to file any evidence by way of affidavit.
7. We have perused the material on record.
8. None has appeared on behalf of complainant and all the OPs. As OP1 and OP2 didn’t put appearance despite service. Hence, they are proceeded ex-parte. The complainant has successfully discharged the onus by placing receipts and marksheet that he had joined B.Ed course with OP1 & OP2 on record. Reply filed by OP3 & OP4 further supports the contention of complainant that OP1 and OP2 were not recognized to conduct B.Ed. Degree Course. Thereby OP1 and OP2 have indulged in unfair trade practice by misleading that they were recognized to conduct B.Ed degree course.
9. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed and OP1 & OP2 are directed to refund Rs. 51,100/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of complaint. We further award Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mentally agony as OP1 & OP2 have played with the future of complainant by misleading him. The compensation shall include cost of litigation also.
10. This order be complied with, by OP1 & OP2 jointly or severally within 30 days from the receipt hereof. Failing which the compensation shall also carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party, free of cost, as per Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
12. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  01.09.2017) 

     

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur) Member