Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, arising out of the order dated 17.2.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs as under ; “ The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by the complainant on 20.5.2008 and 1.08.2008 vide two receipts Annexure C7. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and misrepresentation to the complainant, as held above and wasting his precious one year of career. The entire amount alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 23.10.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.” 2. The complainant undertook the CAT test for admission to Master’s Business Administration(MBA). He received interview letters, from various institutes, including OP-2 (now respondent No.1 in appeal No.129 of 2010). Allured by the false promises made by OP Nos.2 to 5 ( in the original complaint), that OP No.2, was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun; that it was a study centre of the said University and he shall be given a regular degree of MBA, by the aforesaid University, he chose to get admission in MBA course, in their College, and deposited admission fee of Rs.15,000/-. At the time of admission, the complainant was made to sign the standard forms.Thereafter, he deposited another amount of Rs.1,85,000/- towards fee. He attended the classes in Sector 25, Chandigarh, for about 3 months. On 18/19.10.2008, all of a sudden, he was shocked to know that the name of the institute was changed from INC to INC Adam Smith. He also came to know, at that time, that the College was not affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, but was affiliated with ICFAI University, Tripura, which was not disclosed to him, at the time of admission. It was further stated that the affiliation was subsequently changed to Sikkim Manipal University, and, thereafter, to Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, within a year. It was further stated that a letter dated 21.10.08 was issued by OP Nos.2 to 5 for parent meeting in INC campus, wherein, requirement of 75% attendance of the students of MBA course was insisted which was only mandatory for a regular course. It was further stated that right from the very beginning, the OPs indulged into grave unfair trade practice, deficiency, in rendering service, committed fraud and cheating with the students, by giving misleading information, about their status, and by not providing required infrastructure, as was promised. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. After hearing the complainant, at the time of preliminary hearing, the complaint against the ICFAI University, Dehradun, Village Bhawala, near Sailakhui Industrial Area, Poanta Sahib Road, District Dehradun, Shri Sukhwinder Singh Mann, Assistant Manager (Development), ICFAI National College (INC) (Now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh, and Anjali Mahajan, Counselling Officer, ICFAI National College (INC) (Now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh, OPs 1, 4 and 5 (in the original complaint) respectively was dismissed vide, order dated 04.11.2009, by the District Forum , without issuing notice to them, as the complainant was not able to establish, whether any service was rendered by them, qua him. 4. OP Nos.2 & 3, in their written reply, stated that the complainant, at the time of admission, was provided the prospectus and application form disclosing information regarding the University, INC, MBA Programme, Education Methodology, Case Study, Resources and Facilities, Summer Internship etc. After going through the same, and accepting the same to be correct, the complainant submitted the application form, of his own volition. It was further stated that he signed the said application form, after having understood the contents thereof. It was further stated that he agreed to the terms and conditions, contained in this form, including the declaration. It was stated that there was no mention in the prospectus that OP No.2 was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, or that the same was recognized by the UGC. It was further stated that the INC was providing only academic support and placement assistance just equivalent to tuition classes, for which no UGC recognition was required. It was further stated that for one year after enrollment, the complainant availed of the services of OP No.2 for the amount paid, and thereafter requested for the refund of amount paid, on the ground, that his family was not in a position to pay the tuition fee for the next year. The complainant had also attended pre-MBA classes apart from attending the tuition classes from May, 2008 to June,2009. It was further stated that the complainant himself was not able to continue the programme of his own, after the first semester and filed the complaint to defame the OPs. It was further stated that it was clearly mentioned in the prospectus at page- 5 that INC was a constituent of ICFAI Academy, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, for the promotion of education and was permitted to open centers anywhere in India. The change of INC to INC-Adam-Smith, was admitted by the OPs. It was denied that the complainant was given a misleading information that OP No.2 was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, and it was its off campus study centre , at Chandigarh. It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, and indulged into unfair trade practice, by allegedly playing fraud and cheating the students, by giving misleading information, to them. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties , and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint , in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, Appeal bearing No.129 of 2010 titled as Bhuvan Bhalla Vs ICFAI National College & another was filed by the appellant/complainant for modification of the order, passed by the District Forum, by way of grant of compensation, in the sum of Rs.12 lacs, for wasting two precious years of her life, by the OPs, Rs.5 lacs for mental tension & physical harassment, Rs.30,000/- as interest paid by the complainant to the Bank, alongwith litigation costs, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and interest @ 18% p.a., and Appeal bearing No. 131 of 2010 titled as Adam Smith Institute of Management & another Vs Bhuvan Bhalla was filed by the appellants/OP Nos.2&3, for setting aside the order of the District Forum, being illegal, 8. The service of respondent No.2, was dispensed with, vide order dated 3.11.2010, he being a proforma respondent. 9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for appellant/Complainant, in Appeal bearing No.129/2010, and the respondent in Appeal No.131/2010, submitted that, right from the very beginning OP No.2 Institute, cheated the complainant and gave him misleading information about the fact that INC(now Adam smith Institute of Management) was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun. He further submitted that he was enrolled as a regular student and that was why 75% attendance was insisted upon, for appearing in the examination. He further submitted that the appellants/OPs in Appeal No.131 of 2010 were running a regular course of MBA programme at off-campus study centre, at Chandigarh. He further submitted that had the complainant been made known, at the time of taking admission that appellant No.1/OPNo.2, in Appeal No.131/2010 was not affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, and it was not legally authorized to open its off Campus Study Centre, at Chandigarh, he would not have taken admission, and paid the fee. He further submitted that the appellants/OPs in Appeal No.131/2010 were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice, by giving misleading information to the students, including him, playing fraud upon them, and also cheating them. He further submitted that a computer was given by the appellants/OPs, in Appeal No.131/2010 to the complainant which he was ready to return. It was further submitted that the District Forum did not take into consideration, that two precious years of the career of the complainant were wasted , as a result whereof, it fell into an error in granting only a meagre compensation of Rs.50,000/-, interest at a nominal rate and meagre costs. He further submitted that the complainant be granted compensation of Rs.12 lacs for wasting his two precious years, Rs.5 lacs for mental tension, and physical harassment, Rs.30,000/- as interest paid to the bank for taking loan, Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses, and interest @ 18% p.a. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum be modified, to this extent. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the appellants/OPs, in Appeal No.131 of 2010, submitted that the complainant with eyes wide open, signed the declaration, contained in the application form for enrollment, for the MBA programme, of his own volition. He further submitted that this declaration was, to the effect, that he was applying for the MBA Programme, as a private candidate, and that he had carefully read the academic and administrative Rules and Regulations of ICFAI University, Dehradun. He further submitted that there was a clear-cut admission of the complainant in the declaration that, in case, he withdrew from the programme, he would not be entitled to claim any refund of the amount paid to the College and the University. He further submitted that R3 an application form for academic support and placement assistance of INC was also signed by the complainant, with eyes wide open, which contained the declaration, that he would be provided academic support and placement assistance offered by it, as a private candidate of the MBA programme. He further submitted that both these declarations, contained, in the forms OP/1 & R3, were signed by the complainant, after understanding the Rules and Regulations, and he could not be allowed to wriggle out of the same. He further submitted that the appellants/OPs never made any false representation, to the complainant, that OP NO.2 was affiliated with ICFA I University, Dehradun. He further submitted that OP No.2 institute, never represented that it was off Campus Study Centre of ICFA University, Dehradun. He further submitted that after more than one year of attending the classes, the complainant of his own, left the course, due to financial crises, in his family and, as such, he was not entitled to the refund of fee to the tune of Rs.1,85,000/-, deposited with the appellants/OPs and Rs.15,000/- deposited with ICFAI University, Dehradun, directly. He further submitted that the complainant was never enrolled, as a regular student, for the MBA programme. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that misleading information was given to the complainant, by OP No.2, that it was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun ; that it was off campus study centre of the said University; and that he was given admission as a regular student. He further submitted that the complainant was given a computer by appellant No.1/OP No.2, but he never returned the same after leaving studies, of his own volition. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 12. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties , and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed, with minor modification so far as Appeal No.129/2010 is concerned, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, any misrepresentation was made by appellant No.1/OP No.2 in Appeal No.131/2010, that it was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, and off Campus Study Centre of the said University was at Chandigarh. There is a document annexure C-9 at page-36 of the District Forum file, nomenclatured as “comparative table-INC Vs ASIM Campus”. This document was supplied by the appellant No.1/OP No.2. In this document, in clear-cut terms, it was stated that ICFAI National College(INC) was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun. Letter dated 21.10.2008 at page 37 of the District Forum File, was issued by Col.K.K.Sharma,Campus Head of Appellant No.2/OP NO.3, in which, it was specifically mentioned that the degree of the students, will come from ICFAI University, Dehradun. Annexure C5 is the document issued by OP No.2(now known as Adam Smith Institute of Management). According to this document ASIM(Adam Smith Institute of Management) has been running its campus at Chandigarh, since 2006. It means that ASIM Chandigarh was the off campus study centre, of ICFAI, Dehradun. However, in the written statement, a completely contradictory stand was taken by the OP, that it never made a representation to the students that ICFAI National College (now Adam Smith Institute of Management) was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun and it was an off study centre of ICAFI, at Chandigarh. In the face of the aforesaid documents, the contrary stand taken by the OPs, in the written reply, as also by its Counsel at the time of arguments, clearly proves that a false representation was made to the complainant by OP No.2, that it was affiliated with ICFAI University, and was authorized to run off campus study centre for MBA Programme of ICFAI University at Chandigarh. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard are affirmed. 13. The second question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, it was a full time regular MBA programme, which was offered to the complainant, and other students. C-6 is the welcome address of the Director of OP No.2, in which it was mentioned that they were offering a full-time MBA programme in 154 campuses across the Country. In C-9, at page 36, it was in clear-cut terms, mentioned that the said institute was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun. The letter dated 21.10.2008 attached with annexure C9, regarding the parent meeting-INC Campus issued by OP No.3, duly recorded about the agitation of the students, regarding the requirement of 75 % attendance and their insistence on this. OP-3, referred to the University Grants Commission (hereinafter to be referred as UGC) Rule, providing for the same, and mentioned that they do not wish to compromise on this aspect of the matter. The OPs admitted that they had been doing this for the last three years, and would continue to do the same, in future, which was the practice in all 154 INC campuses across the Country. In case, it was not a regular Course, which was offered to the complainant, and other students, then what was the necessity of 75% attendance. If the complainant got enrolled himself, as a private candidate for MBA degree certificate Course, then the question of 75% attendance for making him eligible, to appear in the examination, did not at all arise. Reference to UGC Rule, which was not applicable to the appellant No.1/OP No.2, was misconceived. From the aforesaid document, it was, thus, proved that an impression was given by the OP intentionally to the students that it was a regular Course. The contrary stand taken by the OPs, in the written reply, and at the time of arguments, by their Counsel, that it was not a regular Course, but the complainant enrolled himself as a private student, clearly proved that a false representation was made to the students that it was a regular course. The District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion, that a false representation was made, that it was a regular MBA Course, for which 75% attendance was required. 14. Now the next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether the appellants/OPs in appeal No.131 of 2010 were running off campus study centre of ICFAI University, Dehradun, at Chandigarh, unauthorizedly. At the time of admission of the complainant, in the Course, he filled in the application form for enrollment OP/1. From this document, it is evident that he was being enrolled to ICFAI University, Dehradun. It is, thus, suggestive of the fact that appellant No.1/OPNo.2 was the off-campus study centre of the said University and it was competent to enroll the students on its behalf. Vide R3, application form, for academic support and placement assistance filled-in by the complainant, he was asked with regard to INC centre where he wanted to study. Against this column “Chandigarh” was written. It means that the appellant/OP was running INC centre at Chandigarh. It was so done, with a view to befool the students, and to let them believe that they were the students of ICFAI University College and not the students of a private institute. When the information was asked for from the UGC, New Delhi, the same was supplied vide Annexure C-10, wherein, it was in clear-cut terms, stated that ICFAI University, Dehradun, & ICFAI University, Tripura were Private Universities. It was further intimated vide C10, that Private Universities could not affiliate any Institute/College. They could not establish off-campus study centres, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned State. However, they could establish off-campus study centres, within the concerned States, after their existence, for five years, and with the prior approval of the University Grants Commission. It was further intimated vide C-10 that so far UGC had not approved off campus study centre of any Private University. Vide C-10 it was also intimated by the UGC, that for running programmes, in distance mode, the approval of joint committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC, was required. It was further intimated that Distance Education Council is the Coordinator of the Joint Committee. The students/public at large were advised to have access to the website of the UGC before taking admission, in any of the above State Private Universities, and report the matter to the Secretary, UGC, on finding any violation of the above provisions. This document, therefore, clearly proved that ICFAI University, Dehradun and ICFAI University, Tripura could not open their off campus study centres outside the States, in which, they were located ,and they also could not provide distance education, except with the approval of the Joint Committee, referred to above, which they never got. Even, no degree could be awarded, by the said University from any other place, than the University campus. It means that the appellant No.1/OP No.2 institute in appeal No.131 of 2010 was being run, against the instructions/guidelines of the UGC. The appellants/OPs in Appeal No.131/2010 gave wrong information, to the students, with a view to attract them by adopting unfair trade practice, knowing fully well, that it was neither affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, nor it could legally open an off-campus study centre at Chandigarh of ICFAI University, nor ICFAI University, Dehradun could award degrees to the said candidates, for regular Course of MBA. Thus, OPs/appellants indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 15. Right from the very beginning, the case of the complainant/respondent, in Appeal No.129/2010, was to the effect ,that had it been made known to him that Appellant No.1/OP No.2 institute in Appeal No.131/2010 was not affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun and it was a private institute, he would not have chosen to study there. Once, he was given an impression and made to believe that the appellant No.1/OP NO.2 in Appeal NO.131/2010 was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, he took admission in the said College. It was, later on, that the complainant came to know, as discussed above, that neither appellant No.1/OPNo.2 in Appeal No.131/2010 was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, nor it could legally open off campus study centre at Chandigarh, nor it could enroll candidates for regular MBA Course. However, when ICFAI students came to know, about the fraud, having been played upon them, they protested against the same, and a news item also appeared in Chandigarh Tribune dated 21.10.2008, a copy whereof, is Annexure C/8. The news about the misdeeds of ICFAI also appeared in a 24 page magazine “Careers 360”, a copy whereof is Annexure C/13. It was, thereafter, that he applied for discontinuing the Course and refund of fee paid by him, but the OPs did not agree. Even the agitations were held, and there was uproar, amongst the students, against the OPs since, October, 2008, as is clear from Annexure C/8 and Annexure C/13. It was, thus, clearly proved that right from the very beginning, the intention of OP No.2/appellant No.1, in appeal No.131/2010 was to extract the tuition fee and other amounts, from the complainant, and other students, by misleading them, that it was off campus study centre of ICFAI University, Dehradun, and it could open the same at Chandigarh, and enroll the students, for regular Course of MBA. OP No.2/appellant No.1 cheated the complainant and other students by playing fraud upon them, by giving them misleading information, referred to above, and, thus, indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, are affirmed. 16. Though, the appellant/complainant in Appeal No.129/2010 sought modification of the order of the District Forum, claiming enhanced compensation for wastage of two years of his career , as also for mental tension and physical harassment, costs and interest , yet it may be stated here, that the District Forum, after taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case was right, in granting compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is settled principle of law, that the Consumer Foras, are not meant to enrich the complainants, at the cost of the service providers. The compensation required to be awarded, by the Consumer Foras, should be reasonable, just and fair, and commensurate with the facts and circumstances prevailing, on record. It should neither be excessive, nor too meagre. In the instant case, the compensation of Rs.50,000/-, granted by the District Forum, could not be said to be meagre, and, on the other hand, the same is just, fair and reasonable. Similarly, the costs and interest awarded also cannot be said to be meagre. No ground, therefore, for enhancement of compensation, costs and rate of interest is made out. 17. No doubt, the Counsel for appellant No.1/OP No.2 in Appeal No.131/2010, submitted that, forms annexure OP/1 and annexure R3 were filled in by the complainant, with eyes wide open, and he signed the declarations contained therein, which were, to the effect, that he was enrolling himself, as a private student, he shall be given academic support and placement assistance offered by INC to the private candidates of the MBA programme, and shall not be entitled to the refund of fee and , as such, he could not wriggle out of the same made by him on 26.3.2008, yet it may be stated here, that the said contention of the Counsel for the appellant/OP, could not be accepted as correct. No doubt, on forms annexure OP/1 and annexure R3, which were filled in by the complainant there was a printed declaration. When a student, who is not so mature, in the worldly life, seeks admission, in a particular course, he is to sign the form of the institute. In Appeal No.131/2010 the Director of appellant No.1/OP No.2 institute made a representation in his address annexure C6, nomenclatured as “Welcome to INC Placements” that INC College (Now Adam Smith Institute of Management Chandigarh) was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun and was their off campus study centre. Not only this, in so many other documents, discussed above, such a representation was made. As discussed above, in the written statement and at the time of arguments, the stand of OP No.2/appellant, was that it was not affiliated with ICFAI University and it had not opened its off campus study centre at Chandigarh. In these circumstances, the students including the complainant were misled. If, under these circumstances, the complainant was made to sign the printed declaration, on the aforesaid forms, which was contrary to the documents, referred to, and discussed above, then the same were the result of misrepresentation and fraud. These printed declarations, besides being contrary to the documents, referred to, and discussed above, issued by the OP and UGC could be said to be one sided, and overloaded in favour of OP No.2. These printed declarations, appended on the application forms, referred to above, were nothing but amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice. These declarations, therefore, could not be said to have been signed by the complainant of his own volition, but, on account of the false representations, made to him, and fraud played on him, in the manner, indicated above. Under these circumstances, the complainant could not be said to be bound by the said declarations, especially, when the same have been proved to be false, from the aforesaid documents. In this view of the matter, the submission of Counsel for the appellants/OPs, in Appeal NO.131/2010 that, in view of the declarations, it was not liable to refund the fee, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice, being devoid of merit, must fail and same is rejected. 18. No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties. 19. For the reasons, recorded above, Appeal No.129/2010 titled Bhuvan Bhalla Vs ICFAI National College & another, is dismissed, with no order as to costs, with minor modification that the computer, which was supplied to the complainant /appellant, by the OP institute i.e. ICFAI National College ( Now Adam Smith Institute of Management), during the study course, shall be returned by him, to the said institute, within a period of 60 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, by issuance of a registered notice, failing which he shall pay the price thereof to OP No.2/appellant, in Appeal No.131 of 2010, as was prevailing, on the date of return. 20. Appeal No.131/2010 titled as Adam Smith Institute of Management & another Vs Bhuvan Bhalla is also dismissed, with no order as to costs. 21. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 22. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
