BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Bhuvan Bhalla son of Shri Hira Lal, resident of House No.2528/1, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  Deleted vide order dated 04.11.2009.

2.  ICFAI National College (INC) (Now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh) through its Principal/Campus Head.

3.  Col. K.K. Sharma, Principal, ICFAI National College (INC) (Now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh).

4.  Deleted vide order dated 04.11.2009.

5.  Deleted vide order dated 04.11.2009.

                                   ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Mohit Jaggi, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. for OPs 2 & 3.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

              The complaint against OP No.1,4 and 5 was not admitted.

2.           Succinctly put, the complainant undertook the CAT test for admission to MBA and received interview letters from various institutes including OP-2. Allured by the false promises made by OPs 2 to 5 he chose to get admission in their college  and deposited admission fee of Rs.15,000/- and thereafter Rs.1,85,000/- alongwith Rs.970/- as late fee fine charges.  He attended the classes in Sector 25, Chandigarh for about 3 months.  However, suddenly on 18/19.10.2008 he was shocked to know that the name of institute was changed from INC to INC Adam Smith and further that the college was not affiliated with the ICFAI University, Dehradun but was affiliated with ICFAI University, Tripura which was not disclosed to him. The affiliation was subsequently changed to Sikkim Manipal University and thereafter to MDU Rohtak within a year.  Vide circular dated 30.10.2008 he sought information regarding the functioning of the OPs but nothing was provided.  It has been alleged that since the very beginning the OPs have indulged in grave unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, fraud and cheating by giving misleading information about their status and by not providing the required infrastructure as was promised. Hence this complaint.

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 respectively was dismissed vide order dated 4.11.2009 without issuing any notice to them as the complainant was not able to prove whether any service was rendered by them qua him.

4.           In their written reply OPs 2 & 3 denied if it was so mentioned in the prospectus that they have affiliation from ICFAI University, Dehradun or that they were UGC recognised. It has been submitted that the INC was providing only academic support and placement assistance just equivalent to tuition classes for which no UGC recognition was required.  It has been submitted that the complainant submitted the application form of his own volition after going through the prospectus and after completion of one year and availing services to the fullest extent requested for refund on the ground that his family was not in a position to pay the tuition fee for next year.  It has been denied that the complainant attended only 3 months tuition classes.  It has been rather submitted that the complainant attended all the tuition classes and Summer Internship Programme from March to June 2009, received the costly courseware material, laptop computer etc. The change from INC to INC-Adam-Smith has been admitted.  It has been denied that the requirement of 75% attendance was only mandatory for regular students or that the complainant was given admission as a regular student.  It has been pleaded that the disclosure at page 5 of the prospectus clearly mentioned that INC was a constituent of ICFAI Academy. It has been submitted that the complainant has filed the present complaint just to defame the answering OPs and no other student has raised any doubt. It has been submitted that the INC centers were not the off-campus centers of the ICFAI University.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

5.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.           We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including written arguments.

7.           The contention of the OPs is that they never made any misrepresentation, that their institute was not affiliated with the ICFAI University, Dehradun but it was extending academic support and placement assistance to the students.  It is argued that they were helping the candidates to appear for ICFAI University, Dehradun to clear the MBA examination as a private candidate.  This contention runs contrary to the representations made by the OPs to the complainant and others.

8.           Annexure C/9, is the document issued by the OP in which it is specifically mentioned that their institute is affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun.  There is another letter dated 21.10.2008 issued by OP-3 in which it was specifically mentioned that the degree of the students will come from ICFAI University, Dehradun. However, it is now been contended by the OPs in their reply that their institute was not affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun and therefore the representation made vide Annexure C/9 is proved to be a false representation.

9.           Infact from the very beginning the OPs had been giving an impression that theirs was an outside campus of ICFAI University, Dehradun.  Annexure C/6 is the welcome address of the Director of the OP-2 in which it was mentioned that they were offering a full-time MBA program in 154 campuses across the country.  In Annexure C/9 they have mentioned that it was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun.  The letter dated 21.10.2008 issued by OP-3 records about agitation of the students regarding the requirement of 75% attendance and their insistence on this.  OP-3 referred to the University Grants Commission (herein after mentioned as UGC) rule providing for the same and mentioned that they do not wish to compromise on this.  It was admitted that communication was sent to the parents whose wards were not attending requisite number of classes.  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 in the country.  The contention of the OP now is that infact it was not a regular study and 75% attendance was not necessary but it was insisted by them only to make their students fare well.  It is however not understood as to why they were referring to UGC rule which admittedly was not applicable to them.  It was therefore mentioned intentionally to give the colour that theirs was a campus of ICFAI University, Dehradun.

10.          When the complainant was admitted in the course he had filled up an application form for enrollment copy of which is Annexure OP/1.  This document also mentions that he was being enrolled to ICFAI University, Dehradun. This was also done to suggest that they are the off-campus institute of the said University and were competent to enroll the students on its behalf. There is an application form attached with it in which the centre of examination was mentioned to be Chandigarh.  It has also been alleged by the complainant that by showing the centre at Chandigarh, the OP-2 was working in league with OP-1 to run the centre outside the state of Uttrakhand which under the law they could not do.  However it was done by them to befool their students and to let them to believe that they were studying in the ICFAI University, College and not in a private institute.

11.          The complainant was issued a detailed marks sheet Annexure C/17 showing that it was issued by ICFAI University, Dehradun. This marks sheet reassembles Annexure C-18 which was issued by the Punjab University.  The intention was to make the students believe that the studies in the said institute were being conducted under the aegis of ICFAI University, Dehradun,

12.          When the information was obtained from UGC, New Delhi, it was reported that the ICFAI University Dehradun and ICFAI University Tripura which were private Universities were empowered to award degrees from their main campus with the approval of Statutory Council wherever required.  It was also reported that all the Universities are required to obtain prior approval of Joint Committee and UGC to run distance education programmes outside the Jurisdiction of their respective states and that ICFAI Universities are not permitted to run the centre off-campus in J&K and rest of India.  It is therefore clear that the OP-2 could not have been run by the University as its off-campus and no degree could be awarded by the said University from any place other than their University campus.  It shows that the OP-2 was being run contrary to the legal requirements.

13.          The Learned Counsel for the complainant also referred to Annexure C/19 which is the Annual Report of the ICFAI University, Dehradun in which also a mention is made at page number 4 and 8 to the ICFAI National College i.e. OP-2.

14.          The contention of the complainant is that if it had been made known to him that the said institute is not a part of ICFAI University, Dehradun or it was a private institute he would not have chosen to study there.  He referred to Annexure C/1 and C/2 which show that he could get admission for MBA in IBMR Business School, Ahmedabad.  Annexure C/2 shows that he was selected for MBA in International School of Management and Research, Pune and Annexure C/3 shows that he was selected for admission in International Business School, Delhi. However, when he was let to believe that OP-2 is the institute which is being run by the University itself, he therefore opted for admission in the said College.  However, when ICFAI students came to know that a fraud had been played on them they also protested regarding which a news item appeared in Chandigarh Tribune dated 21.10.2008 a copy of which is Annexure C/8. The news about the misdeeds of ICFAI also appeared in a 24 page magazine “Careers 360” a copy of which is Annexure C/13.  The contention of the Learned Counsel for the complainant is that thereafter he applied for discontinuing the course and refund of the fee paid by him but for that purpose the OPs asked him to mention the reason in his application that he had some financial constraints and only then the fee would be refunded. The OPs have produced Annexure OP/2 issued by the complainant in which he mentioned that his family was not in a position to pay his tuition fee.  The contention of the complainant is that it was mentioned by him at the instance of the OP but otherwise by then, agitations had been held and there was uproar among the students against the OPs since October, 2008 as is clear from Annexure C/8 and Annexure C/13.  It therefore shows that the OPs extracted the tuition fee and other amounts from the complainant by misrepresentations and giving an impression that OP-2 was being run by the ICFAI University, Dehradun and it was the off-campus of the University under their supervision, which actually it was not.  The OPs therefore have no right to retain the amount, they have rather wasted the precious year of the complainant. Had it been told by them that it was a private institution giving only the tuitions, the complainant would not have opted to study in the said centre.

15.          In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint should succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by the complainant on 20.05.2008 and 1.08.2008 vide two  receipts Annexure C-7.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and misrepresentating 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.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.