DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.09/14
Smt. Chandra Kanta Arora
W/o Sh. Rajendra Arora
C/o Shiv Emporium,
Shop No.34 Gole Market,
Haldwani Road, Kichha
Tehsil Kichha,
District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttarakhand)
PIN No. 263148 …. Complainant
Versus
IIPM International Campus,
Chandan Hulla
Bhati Mines Road, Chhattarpur,
New Delhi …. Opposite party
Date of Institution : 09.01.14 Date of Order : 30.11.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
In short, the case of the Complainant is that she had enrolled her son Sh. Saksham Arora on 17.06.13 with the OP under Undergraduate Programme (BBA-MBA) and paid Rs.1 lac in cash to the OP. The councillor of the OP advised them to take loan from the bank and they got confirmation of admission from the OP. She had applied loan in the Bank of Baroda. The bank required the documents of the OP. As the OP did not provide the documents, they could not get the loan from the bank whereas OP had provided the fee structure for full programme from 2013-2016. As a result of inordinate delay intentionally done by the admission programmer and councillor of OP her son could not get the admission in other regular course or other universities. They requested the OP to refund the money but OP refused to refund Rs.1 lac to the Complainant. Complainant has prayed that OP be directed to refund Rs.1 lac alongwith interest and to pay Rs.40,000/- for mental tension and litigation.
OP in the written statement has stated that it is clearly mentioned in the selection letter under the note “under the special arrangement between IIPM, Union Bank of India, IDBI Bank, HDFC Bank and Credila Financial services, students now have an option of availing education loan from Union Bank of India, IDBI Bank, HDFC Bank and Credila Financial services. The loans are at the sole discretion of the banks and the OP is not involved in any way for disbursement of the loan. The payment of fees by the student needs to be strictly on time, irrespective of the fact that the loan sanction may have been approved or delayed. It is submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer as a student of the institute cannot be termed as consumer; that imparting of education is not providing service to potential users. There is no deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, the OP is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.1 lac and Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Rejoinder has been filed by the Complainant. It is inter-alia stated as follows:-
…….”Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of “service” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”- as reported in Bhupesh Khurana Vs. Vishwa Buddha Parihad [2001] 2CPJ (NC) 74.”
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence.
OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 07.03.16.
We have heard the augments of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the Complainant’s son had applied for admission with the OP institute for undergraduate AICD-MBA for session 2013 – 2016 and paid Rs.1 in cash vide receipt dated 17.06.13 (for the purpose of identification we mark the document as annexure-A). We mark the copy of structure of fees provided by the OP to the Complainant as Annexure-B.
Now, the question comes as to whether it was the duty of the institute to arrange a loan for the complainant or it was the sole responsibility of the complainant to make such arrangement at his own risk and responsibility. Beneath the first page of Annexure “B”, a note has been given which reads as follows:
“Note: The loans are at the sole discretion of the Banks. IIPM is not involved in any way in the loan disbursement process. The payment of fees by the students needs to be strictly on time irrespective of the fact that the loan sanction may have been approved or delayed”.
From the said note, it is thus quite evident that loan was the sole discretion of the Bank. OP was not involved in it in any way. The payment of fees by the student was to be deposited strictly on time irrespective of the fact that the loan sanction might have been approved or delayed. Therefore, in our opinion, OP cannot be held liable for non-sanctioning of the loan to the complainant by the Bank.
Now, the next question comes as to whether OP can retain the entire amount of the complainant though complainant had not studied in its Institute even for a day. In our opinion, OP cannot do so because it is settled principle of law that the Institute cannot charge the student for the period which it had imparted its studies.
It is not the case of the OP that the seat vacated by the son of the Complainant in this case had remained vacant and the OP had suffered any financial loss on this account. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, we are constrained to hold that the OP did not suffer any financial loss in this case. The stand of OP for not refunding the deposited amount of the complainant is erroneous and is against the principles of natural Justice and thus amounts to deficiency in service.
Therefore, in our opinion, OP is liable to refund the entire amount of Rs.1 lac. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.1 lac towards fee to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs.6% per annum on the amount of Rs.1 lac 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 30.11.16.
