CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.173/2016
MR. MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH RAJPUT
S/O MR. LAXMAN SINGH RAJPUT
R/O VILLAGE JOURI, DISTT.-MORENA,
MADHYA PRADESH
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S ICRI RESEARCH (P) LTD.,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
C-109, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI-110024
ALSO AT:-
F-89/4/1 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PH-1, NEW DELHI
………….. RESPONDENT
Case No.174/2016
MR. ABHISHEK KAUSHAL
S/O MR. KARAM CHAND
R/O P.O. BUDHAN,
TEHSIL BANGANA, DISTRICT UNA(H.P.)
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S ICRI RESEARCH (P) LTD.,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
C-109, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI-110024
ALSO AT:-
F-89/4/1 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PH-1, NEW DELHI
………….. RESPONDENT
Case No.175/2016
MR. PRASENJIT NANDI
S/O MR. RABINDRANATH NANDI
R/O H.NO.55, 3RD FLOOR, GIRI NAGAR,
TILAK KHAND, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI – 110019
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S ICRI RESEARCH (P) LTD.,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
C-109, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI-110024
ALSO AT:-
F-89/4/1 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PH-1, NEW DELHI
………….. RESPONDENT
Case No.176/2016
MR. YAVAN KUMAR
S/O SH. PARSHURAM SINGH
R/O H.NO.15, KAMNA VAISHALI,
SECTOR-5, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD– 201010
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S ICRI RESEARCH (P) LTD.,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
C-109, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI-110024
ALSO AT:-
F-89/4/1 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PH-1, NEW DELHI
………….. RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 01.08.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
By this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid complaints as the common question of fact and law is involved. For the sake of reference, facts of case no.173/16 are detailed.
The only point for consideration is whether complainant is a ‘consumer’.
The case of the complainant is that OP assured that OP is affiliated to Indira Gandhi National Open University(IGNOU) and every student will get degree form IGNOU. Even in the prospectus of IGNOU, OP has shown its affiliation with IGNOU. Complainant was also supplied prospectus of IGNOU in which ICRI campus has been shown in the list of Programme Study Centre.
It is further stated that believing the assurances of OP, complainant sought admission in M.Sc. Clinical Trial(2011-13) and deposited fee of Rs.1,25,000/-. Thereafter classes were conducted in the ICRI campus, however no examination was held even after completion of one year of studies. OP assured complainant that ICRI authorities are talking to IGNOU and soon thereafter examination shall be conducted. In the meanwhile authorities of ICRI asked complainant to deposit further fees of Rs.1,25,000/- for the second year and threatened that in case fees for the second year is not deposited then admission shall stand cancelled. Accordingly complainant under pressure from ICRI authorities, deposited fees for the second year amounting to Rs.1,25,000/-. Despite depositing of fees even for the second year, no examination was held by ICRI authorities.
It is further stated that thereafter Complainant made enquiries from IGNOU who have clearly stated that they have no concern whatsoever with ICRI and IGNOU is neither going to conduct exam nor is going to issue any degree to the student. This has been communicated to the authorities of ICRI but there was no response from them. Accordingly this complaint has been filed for refund of fees etc. and compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.
In fact the complaint is not a ‘consumer’. Here it is useful to refer to case of Bharti Jindal Vs Swami Vivekananda Group of Institutes & Anr 11(2014) CPJ 179 in that case complainant got admission in IT branch of the OP and deposited Rs.47080/- on 12.7.10 and Rs.18000/- on 14.7.10. Due to family circumstances, the complainant could not join course, claimed refund of the amount. Only Rs.16000/- refunded. Relying upon Maharshi Dayanand Universities Vs Surjeet Kaur IV(2010) CPJ 19(SC) = V(2010) SCT 545 where it was held that matter of admission, fees etc cannot be a question of deficiency in service and refused to entertain the Consumer Dispute under CP Act. It was held by Hon’ble SC in Bihar School Examination Board Vs Suresh Pd. Sinha IV(2009) CPJ 34 (SC) = VII(2009) SCT 109 as well as P.T. Kosny & Anr Vs Ellen Charitable Trust 2012(3) C.P.C. 615(SC) that “Education Boards and Universities are not ‘Service Provider’.
Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of Mayank Tiwari Vs FIIT JEE Ltd. Revision Petition No.4335 of 2014 decided on 08.12.14 and by Hon’ble State Commission recently in case of Rai University Vs Ankur Kapoor, appeal No.620/2009 vide order dated 03.02.2016.
Ld. Counsel for OP relied upon case of Aashirwad Health & Education Trust Vs C. Dhananjay Yadav First appeal No.199 of 2009 decided on 01.03.2013. In that case Hon’ble National Commission has not discussed the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble SC. He also relied upon Buddhist Mission Dental College of Hospital Vs Bhupesh Khurana & Others 1(2009) CPJ 25(SC).
In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission in case of P.T. Kosny & Anr, the complaints are not maintainable hence accordingly dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
