DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sh. Harjit Singh son of Lt. Sh. Inder Singh resident of House No.4843-A, Extn-8, Sunny Enclave, Kharar – 1450 301, Punjab.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

ICFAI University Centre, SCO No.375-376 (1^st Floor), Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA              PRESIDING MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:          Sh. G. S. Saini, Advocate for the complainant and

                    complainant in person.

                    Ms. Harpriya, Advocate for the OPs.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.           Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party, on the grounds that the complainant enrolled for M.B.A (IT) Programme from I.C.F.A.I University, Tripura through its Mohali study centre by distance programme in July 2007. The Mohali Study Centre thereafter merged with Chandigarh. Hence, the jurisdiction of this Forum is attracted. The enrolment of the complainant was confirmed by I.C.F.A.I University and was assigned enrolment number 6010020705410 by email dated 29.6.2007. The complainant paid Rs.70,000/- through 18 Post Dated cheques. The said course was restructured in the year 2008 and a list of new subjects was added. Whereas, at the time of joining the course, the courses A to D were detailed and the course E was only to be given after clearing Group C and so on. The complainant had appeared in the two exams as per old curriculum. Each subject was to be cleared by appearing in two subsequent exams held every three months. The complainant states that the study centre was responsible for supplying him with the relevant study material as provided by I.C.F.A.I University. The study material received  by the complainant was as per the old stream whereas the exam in which he appeared as per the revised courses was not given to him. The complainant claims that he had paid the requisite examination fees while appearing for the examinations but however, he also had the option to reappear in the papers that he was not successful in clearing. It is also disclosed by the complainant that a student during each examination session could register for exams of two groups once they are clear, he can register for the third group and so on. As per ICFAI Prospectus, student was required to clear both exams of each subject in one sitting and the same are conducted in morning and evening sessions simultaneously on the same day. It was during his examination of the course “Managerial Effectiveness I & II”, the complainant could not clear the Part II due to bad health. The complainant enquired from the opposite party if it was possible for him to appear for Managerial Effectiveness Paper II in the second attempt singularly and if the same would suffice the requirement of having cleared both the papers. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party confirmed that it was sufficient for him to appear in the Second Paper alone. The complainant on the advice of the opposite party appeared in the said examination in April 2010 and cleared it.

2.           As such, the Group A course of the complainant was complete and while registering for July 2010 exams, the I.C.F.A.I University Website showed complainant to have not cleared his Group A examination. Hence, he was not able to register for Group C exams containing the course of Marketing Management and I.T. Systems. On making representation with the opposite party, the problem was rectified and the complainant was allowed to proceed with Group C exams. Meanwhile, the complainant made repeated requests to the opposite party for declaring the result of Group A Exam-II but did not receive any reply in this regard.

3.           The complainant appeared for Group B and C exams and cleared the same whereas the result of I.T. Paper-I was never declared. On enquires, the opposite party informed that the result of single exam is not declared. However, on being confronted with his result of Group A Examination, the opposite party feigned ignorance. The opposite party also claimed that the complainant did not appear for I.T-I Exam, which is not true. As such, the complainant was compelled to deposit the registration/examination fee for these courses again and as such, became eligible to appear in these examinations. But despite the fact, the complainant having paid the fees and appeared in the said examinations, the result of which has not been declared till date.

4.           The complainant has alleged that due to the wrong guidance of the study centre, he was made to suffer continuously for no fault of his as in order to qualify for further courses, the required eligibility of having passed the basic courses had been achieved by him. Even though the complainant had successfully cleared his examinations but the result of the same was withheld for the reasons, which were not in his control. The complainant claims that the I.C.F.A.I Study Centre, Chandigarh has failed to guide him in a proper manner and has caused him a huge loss in terms of time, energy and money. The complainant has also annexed a number of email communications through which he had requested for providing the remaining 34 books under EDWINTAGE Scheme and the same have been annexed at Page 33 to 46 with the complaint.

5.           The complainant further states that due to the lackadaisical attitude of the study centre, he has lost two precious academic years as well as an amount of Rs.70,000/- paid by him have gone waste. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of study centre in not giving him proper guidance, the complainant has sought the relief of:-

(i)       refund of Rs.70,000/- deposited as registration/examination fee;

(ii)     Rs.30,000/- spent on traveling on phone calls;

(iii)    Rs.15,000/- as miscellaneous expenses;

(iv)     Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and agony;

(v)       Rs.15,000/- on account of legal expenses.

6.           The complainant has demanded the entire amount of relief amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest @18% per annum.

7.           On notice, opposite party filed written statement wherein it has taken preliminary objections with regard to the present complaint deserve to be dismissed out rightly as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil AppealNo.3911/2003 titled Bhiar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prashad Sinha decided on 4.9.2009 wherein it is held that educational institutions discharging their statutory function do not offer any services to a candidate. It is further contended that the complainant filled up and submitted an application form to I.C.F.A.I University, Tripura to enroll into M.B.A. Programme as a private candidate. A copy of the application form signed and submitted by him is annexed as Annexure R-1. The complainant at the time of enrolment was provided with programme prospectus for the said course free of cost. The said prospectus on Page 12 clearly shows a declaration mentioned as “Jurisdiction of all disputes (if any) relating to the University is Agartala, Tripura, India” and it is claimed that the same was accepted and signed by the complainant. Hence, this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and deserves to be dismissed in limine.

8.           The opposite party before replying on merits, has brought to notice about the detailed contents of the Application Form for Enrolment, which contains a detailed page under the title “Legal Aspects” wherein the subheadings ‘Enrolment Agreement’, ‘Entire Agreement’, ‘Interpretation’, ‘Conclusion of the Agreement’, ‘No third party beneficiary’, ‘No obligation to services’, ‘Arbitration’, ‘Indemnity’ and ‘Applicable Law’ are distinguishably printed. In the said document, the opposite party has cited that as per this agreement and its clauses, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and if at all, the complainant still wants to prefers it, the same comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Agartala, Tripura, India.

9.           While giving the parawise reply to the averments of the complaint, the opposite party has categorically stated that the university reserves the right to amend the rules and regulations whenever considered necessary and appropriate. It is further stated that the restructuring of MBA Program was done at the end of first examination and all relevant changes were emailed to all the students. Furthermore, the changes of syllabus and supply of study material was done at the relevant time. The courseware of Group A to E was dispatched to the complainant through courier and the modus of conduct of examination as mentioned by the complainant is admitted. The allegation of the complainant with regard to the information supplied by the Chandigarh Study Centre for him to appear in Part I and II examinations on two different occasions is vehemently denied on the ground that the marks secured in two papers are added together while assessing the examinee being successful in passing the same. It is also important that both these papers are to be appeared on the same day in morning as well as evening session. Meaning thereby that the complainant was to appear in Paper I and Paper II of Course A on the same day and pass the same, which he failed to do. The opposite party further states that this aspect is clearly mentioned in the program prospectus and student regulations.

10.          The opposite party further states that the request of the complainant to appear in Group C exam could not be honored as he was not successful in clearing the Group A and B remaining papers. The name of the two different papers are mentioned as Group A Managerial Effectiveness and Group B Business Economics and the same are required to be cleared in order to progress in the aid program.

11.          The opposite party claims that the course curriculum is so structured that the students are able to cope with the requirements of the syllabus and hence, the same is made student friendly and more logical. The opposite party has denied that the student is required to pass only 20 subjects instead of 22 as claimed by the complainant.

12.          It is contended by the opposite party that if the student withdraws from any of its program voluntarily with explicit consent to the opposite party, he is not entitled for any refund as the fees once paid is not refundable under any circumstances. This aspect was made clear to the complainant in the very beginning itself.  It is also mentioned that non entitlement of refund of fee and subsequent failure of such refund does not amount to deficiency in service. This particular clause is as per the opposite party, is fortified by a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh State Commission in the case K. Siva Prasad Vs. Y. Krishnaveni Rao, 2004 (1) ALD, Consumer 7. In another judgment of AP State Commission in the case Bapatla Engineering College & Another Vs. Thimmapuram Seshadri, 2005 (IV) CPJ 314, it is held that when the opposite parties are ready to provide services, the student who leaves the program voluntarily is not entitled for refund of fee.

13.          The reply/version of the opposite party is supported by an affidavit of one Mr. Amar Singh, Branch Manager of the opposite party. Para No.3 of the affidavit clearly mentions that the complaint was made against I.C.F.A.I, University Centre, SCO No.375-376, 1^st Floor, Sector 35B, Chandigarh as opposite party. There is no such entity on the said premises whereas the Centre established at the premises is not a University but a mere facilitating and information office which is called as IFEN, Chandigarh. It is further stated that IFEN- is separate and independent entity, which is providing academic support and placement assistance to the students who are enrolled into different programs of ICFAI University, Tripura. The remaining part of the affidavit is a mere repetition of the reply filed by the opposite party.

14.          Parties led their respective evidences.

15.          Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the opposite party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

(i)           Before we proceed to look into the merits of the present complaint, it would be important to deal with the preliminary objection of the opposite party with regard to its immunity as granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjit Kaur, 2010 (3) ACJ 10, wherein the student of a University could not be defined as a ‘consumer’.

              It is important to visit the reply/version of the opposite party in its total entirety which includes the reply, the annexures as well as the affidavit of Sh. Amar Singh, Branch Manager of IFEN, Chandigarh as declared by him. The few aspects that have come to light from these documents are quite contradictory to each other. Reason being, it is understandable that ICFAI University, Tripura can be held an independent entity and claim the shelter granted by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case MDU Vs. Surjit Kaur (supra) but we are unable to place the entity IFEN, Chandigarh at the same pedestal because the affidavit  of its Branch Manager clearly states that it is an independent entity and as such, is established to facilitate the disbursement of information as well as study material to the students of ICFAI University. In the present circumstances, neither the ICFAI University nor the IFEN, Chandigarh has produced any document to prove the link that in what manner the two different entities are working. It is also surprising to note that as all the tuition fee as well as examination fee collected by IFEN Centre is transmitted to ICFAI University, Tripura, the element of consideration for which the IFEN Centre is working for, remains a secret to us. Hence, as the complainant from the day one had been dealing with the Chandigarh Centre of ICFAI University for all its requirements of information, study material and for appearing in examinations, we find the IFEN Centre responsible. Hence, the Chandigarh Centre cannot claim the immunity as granted by the above mentioned Supreme Court judgment.

(ii)          It is also important to understand the aspect that in what manner the complainant claims to be a consumer of opposite party. We feel that no business entity can survive without generating money during the course of its activities. The IFEN Centre has neither categorically stated that it is doing a social service or a charitable work while acting as the centre of ICFAI University. The IFEN Centre has also not produced any document of authorization as granted by ICFAI University for doing the work it claims to be done on behalf of the University.

(iii)         The allegations of the complainant with regard to the wrong guidance by Chandigarh Centre have not been addressed in a proper manner by the opposite party. The complainant had clearly stated that he was asked to appear in two different papers of the same subject on two different dates whereas the opposite party in its reply categorically states that thee was no such provision available to its students. But at the same time, the complainant was asked to pay course fee as well as examination fee for appearing in the subsequent course. We are unable to understand that if a student was not successful in the qualifying examination, how come the opposite party demanded the money for the next subsequent course. The opposite party cannot be allowed to claim something and act in a manner, which is totally contrary to what they claim. Hence, we find the Chandigarh Centre of the opposite party acting in a manner, which is detrimental to the future of the students enrolled with the opposite party.

(iv)          The allegation of the complainant with regard to the schedule change of course is addressed in a very feeble manner. Though we understand that the University has the right to structure its courses at any point of time, but it is also important that any such restructuring should not be done at the expense of putting a full academic year of student at stake. The student who has completed the academic course should be tested for the same and not subjected to the examination, which is based on the restructured course. We feel that the student should be given sufficient opportunity to pass the course he has studied and such opportunities are to be clearly made known to such students i.e. how many attempts would be available to a student to clear a particular course that he has already undergone. The opposite party has failed to answer this aspect in a convincing manner.

(v)           The claim of the complainant that he was not supplied with entire study material as mentioned in Para No.11 of the present complaint wherein it is clearly stated that the opposite party promised to deliver 40 books whereas the remaining 34 books under the EDWINTAGE Scheme have not yet reached him. This allegation of the complainant has not been replied by the opposite party in a clear cut specific manner.  Hence, we feel that this allegation of the complainant still remains unaddressed by the opposite party.

(vi)          The complainant in order to raise his grievance has made numerous emails to the IFEN Centre, Mohali as well as Chandigarh and the same are annexed as Annexure VI from Page 33 to Page 40. But we fail to find any satisfactory reply being given to these emails. Even the affidavit of the Branch Manager of IFEN Centre namely Sh. Amar Singh is silent about the same. The claim of the opposite party with regard to the voluntary withdrawal of candidature by the complainant is not proved satisfactorily by the opposite party.

16.          In the light of the above observations, we feel that the present complaint succeeds and we direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.70,000/- along with interest @8% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till it is actually paid. The complainant is also awarded costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000.

17.          The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, opposite party shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount except for the cost of litigation.

18.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12^th December, 2011.                                                       

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER