CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 678/2012
Sh. Gagan Gupta
S/o Sh. Pramod Gupta
R/o H. No.2344,
Opposite Sale Tax House,
Shastri Nagar, Saharanpur (U.P.) ……Complainant
Versus
1. IIPM through its Director
IIPM International Campus,
Satbari Chandan Haula,
Chhatarpur, Bhatimines Road,
New Delhi-110074
2. IIPM through its principal
IIPM International Campus,
Satbari Chandan Haula,
Chhatarpur, Bhatimines Road,
New Delhi-110074
Date of Institution : 21.12.2012 Date of Order : 19.08.2015
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
According to the Complainant the OP No.1 and 2 are the signatory authorities of the institute, namely, Indian Institute of Planning and Management (hereinafter called as IIPM) is an institute to give coaching and degrees to the students of business management and in various other faculties situated in Delhi. OPs usually give their advertisements through different media about the studies and faculties run by them to facilitate the students for the admission for their bright future.
On the basis of regular advertisement through various medias he was also under impression to go for better education and took admission with the OPs for three years full time ‘integrated programme in planning and entrepreneurship’ for the sessions 2011-14. He paid fees as follows:-
- Retention fee Rs.41,500/- dated 10.03.11 vide cheque No. 043801 (Axis Bank) vide fee receipt No. 2339 dated 10.03.11
- Tuition fee and library deposit Rs.1,52,250/- dated 07.05.11 through RTGS- UTI Bank 0000420-Axis, F-11/27079338 on 07.05.11 vide fee receipt No. 2743 dated 18.05.11.
He joined the institute of OPs in the last week of May, 2011 and studied till first week of August 2011 but could not continue his further studies due to poor quality of teaching standard in the institute and also on learning the fact that degree being offered by the OPs was not UGC approved which he came to know during his studies in the institute. This fact surprised him as he had joined the OPs’ institute with a high ambition and hopes. He subsequently took the admission in B. Tech course at Meerut, U.P. for his future prospects by not getting satisfied with the studies provided by the OPs. He requested orally to the concerned authorities to refund his fee after deduction of permissible nominal amount but the OPs did not pay any heed. He visited the OPs several times and made numerous phone calls to look into the issue for refund of the money but no reply had been received from OPs. He was compelled to give a written notice in the month of July, 2012 for refund of his fees. The OPs did not give any reply to the notice and he sent a legal notice through counsel on 04.10.12 for refund of his fee. He sent another notice on 26.10.12 but no reply has been received till date. According to him there is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by not refunding his fees. The Complainant has prayed that OPs be directed:
- to refund an amount of Rs.1,93,750/- which is taken by the OPs as retention fee, tuition fees and library deposits minus permissible deduction to the Complainant.
- to pay a compensation on account of losses occurred to the Complainant and mental torture, agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.2 lakh.
- To pay the litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.
OPs in its written statement have stated that the Complainant has concocted a false story for unlawful gains. The Complainant is not a “consumer” for making the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. OPs have stated that they have not sought recognition from any statutory bodies and are proud of its world class course contents; that it is clearly mentioned in the prospectus and on the website that the students bothered about statutory recognition of IIPM programmes need not apply to IIPM. The value of the IIPM certificate lies in the excellent course and also programmes and also placements of students which they get year after year. The Complainant is not justified in seeking refund for not taking the course which is on account of his own default. Complainant was fully aware as regards the nature of the course and the degree to be awarded. Being completely aware and having full knowledge he had enrolled in the said programme and it is clearly mentioned in the selection letter itself that retention fee is not refundable but still the Complainant deposited the same just to block his seat and when he got admission in another college he is making this cocked up story. OPs have stated that they are not liable to pay the amount of Rs.4,04,750/- (sic) to the Complainant. Prayer is for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder/replication to the written statement filed by the OPs.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Varun Verma, Assistant Manager (legal affairs) of OP has been filed in evidence.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the Counsel for Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the Complainant had taken admission with the OPs for three years full time integrated programme in planning and entrepreneurship for the sessions 2011-14. Indisputably, the complainant deposited Rs. 193750/- under various heads with the OPs. Complainant attended the classes from the last week of May, 2011 to first week of August 2011. According to him, thereafter he started asking of OPs to refund his fees. For the first time, the Complainant vide written letter dated 12.07.12 requested the OPs to refund the fees. He left the institute of OPs due to poor quality of teaching and the degree offered by the OPs was not UGC approved. The OPs have not filed the copy of the prospectus/copy of the selection letter of the complainant to show that the students bothered about the statutory recognition of IIPM programmes were not needed to apply for IIPM course or that the retention fee was not refundable. The onus to prove these facts was on the OPs but, however, they have failed to file these important documents on the file.
The Complainant has filed a judgment dated 26.09.14 of the High Court of Delhi passed in W.P. (C) No.5937/10 B. Mahesh Sharma Vs. Union of Indian & Ors. wherein it is mentioned that the Supreme Court has ordered that prior approval of AICTE is compulsory and mandatory for conduct of a technical course including the MBA/management course.
Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
“We accordingly dispose of this petition, besides the aforesaid directions in paras No.15, 17 and 18, with the following directions:
- The Respondent No.4 IIPM and its management/officials including its Dean Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri are restrained with immediate effect from using the word “MBA, BBA, Management Course, Management School, Business School or B-School” in relation to the Courses/programmes being conducted by them or in relation to the representations if any made to the public at large and/or to their respective clients, customers or students;
- The Respondent No.4 IIPM and its management/officials including its Dean Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri are directed to prominently display on the website of IIPM that they are not recognized by any statutory body/authority and the status of the Foreign University/Institution and/or its Degree or Certificate in the country of its origin and whose Degree or certificate the students enrolling in the Course/Programme offered by the Respondent No.5 IIPM would be entitled to;
- The Respondent No.4 IIPM and its management/officials including its Dean Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri to within one week hereof, upload and display prominently on the website of the Respondent No.4 IIPM this judgment to ensure that the attention of anyone visiting the said website is drawn thereto (we clarify that the short time of one week is given since this is admission time, when students not admitted to Institutes/Colleges of their first choice, would be queuing for further Institutes)
We again clarify that the aforesaid would not relive the Respondent No.4 IIPM from the liability, if any in any action taken by any other person for having been misled in the past.
We also impose costs of Rs.25,000/- on the Respondent No.4 IIPM, to be paid to Delhi Legal Services Authority within four weeks of today.”
We are not oblivious of the fact that the complainant has also concealed some material facts from the Forum. He has not disclosed the date on which he had taken admission in B. Tech course at Meerut (UP) after leaving the OP’s Institute. In order to show his bonafide that he had been given admission in B. Tech course at Meerut (UP) after August 2011, he should have disclosed the date of admission in B. Tech course and filed the copy of his admission card/fee deposit receipt. Therefore, the complainant has also concealed the material facts from this Forum.
In view of the above stated discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs also cannot escape from their liabilities though their liabilities can be lessened.
Taking all the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove in view, we direct the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1 Lac (Rupees One Lac) in lumpsum within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs shall become liable to pay Rs. 1 Lac (Rupees One Lac) along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation.
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 19.08.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 678/12
19.08.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1 Lac (Rupees One Lac) in lumpsum within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs shall become liable to pay Rs. 1 Lac (Rupees One Lac) along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. Let the file be consigned to record room
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
