DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.136/13
Ms Naina Rastogi
D/o Mr. Pradeep Rastogi
R/oNear Central Bank,
Meerapur, Muzafarnagar,
U.P.
….Complainant
Versus
- IIPM Indian School of Business & Economy
Satbari, Chandan Haula,
Chattarpur Road,
New Delhi-110074
Through its Dean
- Indian Institute of Planning & Management
Through its Director Arindam Chaudhuri
B-11, Level -5
Qutab Institutional Area
New Delhi-110016 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 19.03.13 Date of Order : 04.01.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
In short, the case of the Complainant is that she took admission in the two year full time programme in planning and entrepreneurship (specialization in IT) and paid Rs. 4,60,000/- as per the fee structure by the OP. She had applied for loan in order to pay the fee and availed the loan facility from Central Bank of India at an interest rate of 12% p.a. The course was due to commence from January, 2011 till January, 2013 and upon its completion the students were to be awarded degree from M.S University, Tamil Nadu. Soon after the commencement of the course the OPs informed him that the said affiliation /tie up with the MS University had been severed due to certain circumstances and hence they had tied up with another University i.e. Gulbarga University of Karnataka. The examination of the First Semester was scheduled for July, 2011 but the first semester examination was held in November, 2011. The Second Semester Examination of the same University was conducted by the OPs. All the examination papers had the logo of Gulbarga University. The OPs did not declare the result. In May, 2012 it was reported in the newspapers that the Gulbarga University had claimed that they had not taken admission for any student in the said course and they had not conducted any examination; that when she inquired from the OPs they stated that they had resolved with the said University and the result would be declared within a few days. It is submitted that in July, 2012, the UGC published a notice in general stating that the IIPM Institute is not a recognized institute and hence cannot award any degree for MBA/BBA etc. She enquired from the OPs but they stated that there was no issue as such. In March, 2012 to December, 2012, the semesters were meant for specialization for which the OPs provided only tutorials for the third semester. She demanded for regular classes from the OPs which they failed to provide. In the fourth semester no tutorial was provided. She enquired from the OP regarding specialization in the University but the officials of the OPs assured her that IT was existing in the University MBA Programme. In December 2012 the time table for the examination of the course was published but there was no programme of IT as specialization mentioned in it. Complainant has stated that the OPs had neither declared the result of the examination nor issued any degree to him but the OPs asked the students to pursue the same course (so) that they could award the degree from MGU University or the IMI University. It is submitted that the above two universities are even not recognized universities by the UGC and hence they are not eligible to grant the degrees. She along with all the students felt cheated by the OPs and, hence, the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and cheating. The complainant claiming herself a “consumer” has prayed as follows:-
- Direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs 4,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. to the Complainant being the amount paid to the Opposite Parties for undertaking the course.
- Direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. for the undue harassment and agony suffered by the Complainant and wasting her academic life on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services rendered by the Opposite Parties.
- Direct the OPs to award Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of litigation incurred due to the non –redressal of the grievances by the Opposite Parties.
OPs in the written statement have inter-alia stated that “to invoke the jurisdiction/cause of action of Consumer Forums under the Act, the complainant has to be a consumer and in the present case a student of the institute cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ imparting of education is not providing service to potential users. Therefore the ingredients and contents for invoking the jurisdiction of the consumer forum are absent, the complaint cannot be entertained and as such deserves to be rejected without going into any other issues raised therein.” It is further stated that “the parties are bound by the terms of contract and the fora has no jurisdiction to strike down any of the clause of such agreement nor can go beyond such terms and conditions. And therefore the complainant cannot go beyond the contract/agreement. It is submitted that the above said complainant is not a consumer within the section 2 of the Act. It is submitted that the respondent/opposite party is an educational institution……” It is further stated that OPs can award the degrees only by Universities just like the IIM, even IIPM (which is not an university) does not offer a MBA/BBA Degree. In fact OPs had never sought any kind of statutory recognition from any Govt. body ever. The value of the IIPM Certificate lies in the excellent course content and also placements that IIPM students get after year after year. It is further stated that the students who are concerned about statutory recognition need not apply for the programme. It is clearly mentioned on page 77 of the prospectus of IIPM about the non-refund of fee and thereon the selection letter also clearly mentions that the retention fee is non-refundable and accepting the same the complainant deposited the retention fee and now she wants to get it back by playing fraud through the Forum. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any refund from the OPs. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The complainant has not filed a rejoinder.
The complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence while Sh. Varun Verma, Assistant Manager (Legal Affairs) has filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the complainant took admission with the OPs institute for two year programme in planning and entrepreneurship (specialisation in IT) for the session 2011-13 and paid Rs.4,80,000/- to the OPs. Copy of the prospectus has not been filed from either side. However, the copies of the receipts issued by the OPs to the complainant have been filed on the record wherein (as per annexure-C) retention fee for two years programme in Planning & Entrepreneurship for 2011-2013 has been shown as Rs.40,250/-
OPs have placed reliance on a decision to contend that a contract/agreement executed between the parties is a binding contract and no party can depart from its terms and conditions. According to the OPs, a contract was executed between the parties and the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions stipulated therein. However, copy of the judgment has not been provided to us. Anyhow, we are also of the view that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of a legally and validly executed agreement/contract. Neither of the parties, who is signatory to the agreement/contract, can depart from the terms and conditions thereof. However, as stated hereinabove, copy of prospectus has not been filed by either of the parties. The OPs have also not filed the copy of any such so-called agreement or contract executed between them and the complainant.
According to the OPs, IIPM had never applied for recognition from any Govt. body and that the students who are concerned about statutory recognition need not apply for the programme in the OPs institution. However, OPs have not filed any document on the file which may even throw a faint light on the fact that before giving admission to the complainant in the course in question the OPs had clarified these facts to her. OPs have not denied the fact that at the time of giving admission to the complainant they had represented that their institute was tied up/affiliated with M. S. University, Tamil Nadu and thereafter with Gulbarga University of Karnataka. Thus, OP had made mis-representation to the complainant while giving admission to her in the course in question in their institute. Therefore, in our considered opinion, when OPs have not sought any kind of statutory recognition from any Govt. body, the only inference which can be drawn is that the OPs are infact running the institute in the name of imparting education only for the purpose of deceiving and cheating the innocent students into believing that the OPs are running an educational institution and are imparting education. If the contention of OPs is accepted, then great injustice and prejudice would be caused to hundred and thousands of students who will not only be cheated and deceived by parting with their money but also their whole career shall also be marred and ruined. Therefore, we hold that the OPs’ institution is not an education institution.
It is evident from the record that the OPs had neither issued the marks-sheets nor provided the degree to the complainant. Not providing the mark-sheets and/or degree is an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the OPs were deficient in service and also adopted unfair trade practice while not refunding the amount of Rs.4,60,000/- minus Rs.40,250/- (towards non-refundable retention fee of Rs.419750/-) to the complainant. Accordingly, we hold the OPs guilty of deficiency in service and of unfair trade practice.
We allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.419750/- towards fee alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and legal expenses to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs.9% per annum on the amount of Rs.419750/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 04.01.17.
