DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.362 of 02-09-2013

Decided on 07-04-2014

Simarjit Kaur D/o Gurtej Singh R/o Street No.17/4, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.India Can Education Pvt. Limited, having its office at 6th Floor, Knowledge Bulevard A-8 (A) Sector 62 Noida (201309) UP, through its Managing Director.

2.Shri Sunil Bhatt Territory Manager India Can Education Pvt. Limited, having its office at 6th Floor, Knowledge Bulevard A-8 (A) Sector 62 Noida (201309) UP.

3.Abhinav Gupta, Director, ELINA, Consultants, 2094, The Lower Mall Road, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Sudhir Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Narinder Singla, counsel for the opposite party No.1.

Sh.Sandeep Baghla, counsel for the opposite party No.3.

Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that being allured by the advertisement of the opposite parties, she sought admission in ITIM Diploma course of one year duration and the opposite parties demanded the amount of Rs.37,000/- from her for the said course. The basic qualification for the admission was 10th class pass and the same has been told by the opposite parties at the time of admission of the complainant. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.5000/- as fee with the opposite parties on dated 29.6.2012 as per their instructions. The opposite parties put the classes for one month and thereafter they started pressurizing the complainant to change her course to some other course. The opposite parties spoiled one valuable year of the complainant. The complainant has got issued a legal notice dated 17.12.2012 to the opposite parties. The complainant has also got issued a reminder notice dated 5.6.2013 in continuation of the said legal notice and requested the opposite parties to pay the abovesaid amount, but instead of paying the whole amount, they sent her a draft of Rs.6000/- including the interest on the amount of Rs.5000/-, but the opposite parties did not pay any damages on account of the damages suffered by the complainant due to their act and conduct. As such the complainant has got issued another legal notice dated 9.7.2013 to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- as damages, alongwith interest, cost and compensation. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- as damages and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- or to give any other additional or alternative relief for which she may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum as she alleged that she has sought the admission in ITTM Diploma Program which is for the duration of 1 years, rather she has sought the admission in the GIMIT Program offered at the education centre of the opposite party No.3. The aforesaid program is a degree program which is for the duration of 3 years, not 1 year diploma. The complainant has not disclosed the opposite parties that she has only completed her 10th grade and not met the minimum qualification of completing 12th which is an essential for the purpose of enrolling in the said Program. The opposite party No.3 has refunded the part payment made towards the Program fee by the complainant even though she has intentionally chosen not to disclose the fact pertaining to her qualification to the opposite parties at the time of submitting the application for the admission in the aforesaid Program. The refund made by the opposite party No.3 has been duly accepted and deposited by the complainant without any protest. The opposite party No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 1211 Padma Tower-I, 5, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 and is engaged in the business of imparting various programs all over India. The opposite party No.2 was an employee of the opposite party No.3, however the opposite party No.2 has left the service of the opposite party No.3 and is no longer associated with the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 offers various Programs through its own centres and it licensed centres located all over India. The opposite party No.1 granted a licence in favour of the opposite party No.3, to impart programs offered by the opposite party No.1 in its education centre. The opposite party No.3 is having its education centre at Bathinda. The Program opted by the complainant is a degree which is for the duration of 3 years. If a student exits from the program after the first year of the program, he would procure a diploma, if the student exists after two years of the program, he would procure an advanced diploma and if the student successfully completes the entire program, he would be entitled to a BCA degree. The opposite party No.3 issued a rejection letter dated 25.8.2012 to the complainant and informed her that her application for admission has been rejected.

3. Registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.2 on dated 8.10.2013 vide postal receipt No.A RP300216084IN but despite receiving the summons, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against it.

4. The opposite party No.3 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant has sought the admission in GITIM which is a 3 years program and the minimum qualification for the same is 10+2. The complainant has falsely represented that she has sought the admission for one year ITTM in order to wriggle out the minimum qualification as she was not 10+2 pass out. The application for the admission alongwith the documents are forwarded for the approval by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, accordingly, the application of the complainant has also been sent to them. After scrutinizing the application and record and verification it has transpired that the complainant is not a 10+2 pass out, as such the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 rejected her application. The opposite party No.3 issued a registered letter dated 25.8.2012 to the complainant conveying her that she cannot continue with the said 3 years program as her application has been rejected by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 being not eligible for the same and the amount of Rs.5000/- be got refunded or adjusted by her against any other course as per her requirement. The complainant has failed to seek the admission to any other program or the refund of the said amount, these material facts has been concealed by her in the present complaint. The opposite parties have already refunded the amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant vide cheque No.003014 dated 24.6.2013 for Rs.6000/- (Rs.5000/- + Rs.1000/-) alongwith covering letter dated 24.6.2013 that has been voluntarily received by her without any demur. Hence there is no 'lis' in the present complaint and the complainant is estopped by her conduct and acquiescence from seeking the alleged claim.

5. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

7. The submission of the complainant is that she has sought admission in one year diploma course and accordingly, the fee of the course was settled to the tune of Rs.37,000/- and the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.5000/- as first installment vide receipt, Ex.C8. The complainant took the admission in one year diploma on the basis of the basic qualification of 10th class and filled the application for the same, which is in the possession of the opposite parties. After the admission the opposite party No.3 at its centre at Bathinda took the classes for two and half month but thereafter pressurized the complainant to change the course as there was only one student admitted in the course but the opposite parties wrongly alleged that the basic qualification for the course is 10+2. After the issuance of the legal notice to the opposite parties, they dispatched the complainant draft of Rs.6000/- that has been accepted by her under protest but the opposite parties have failed to pay the compensation to her for destroying her one year of the academic career.

8. The submission of the opposite party No.1 is that the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and sought the admission in the GITIM Program and the opposite party No.1 has not directly dealt with the complainant during her admission and enrollment process into the said Program. The opposite party No.3 has enrolled and collected a part payment of Rs.5000/- on dated 29.6.2012 towards the fess from the complainant in its education centre, so it was responsible for conducting the classes and imparting the GIMIT Program. The complainant has falsely alleged in her complaint that she has sought the admission in ITTM Diploma Program which is for the duration of 1 years and basic qualification for the admission was 10th class, rather she has sought the admission in the GIMIT Program offered at the education centre of the opposite party No.3. The GIMIT program is a degree program which is for the duration of 3 years, not 1 year diploma. If a student exits from the program after the first year of the program, he would procure a diploma. If the student exists after two years of the program, he would procure an advanced diploma and if the student successfully completes the entire program, he would be entitled to a BCA degree. For the purpose of enrolling in the said program, it is essential for a student to complete 10+2 qualification i.e. prior to applying for the GITIM Program. The complainant was well aware that the minimum qualification for the aforesaid Program is 10+2, but despite that she concealed this fact from the opposite parties and sought admission in GITIM Program as intimated by the opposite party No.3. The complainant has failed to meet the minimum qualification prescribed for enrolling into the aforesaid Program, as such the opposite party No.3 issued her a rejection letter dated 25.8.2012 and informed her that her application for admission has been rejected as the minimum requirement was 12th Grade complete, which has not been complied by her. The opposite party No.3 refunded the amount of Rs.6000/- to the complainant vide demand draft dated 24.6.2013 drawn on ICICI Bank.

9. The submission of the opposite party No.3 is that the amount of Rs.6000/- has been refunded to the complainant. The complainant has sought the admission in GITIM as per the conditions of the said course, it is a split course, which reveals from the Brochure, Ex.OP3/2. The complainant must be passed 10+2 for the GITIM course, but she has not passed 10+2, thus she was not eligible for the said course. The opposite party No.3 sent the record to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and being not qualified for the aforesaid course, the letter Ex.C9 has been issued to the complainant, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the amount of Rs.5000/- would be refunded/adjusted to her. The opposite party No.3 refunded the amount of Rs.6000/- to the complainant vide letter dated 24.6.2013.

10. A perusal of receipt dated 29.6.2012, Ex.C8, shows that the amount of Rs.5000/- has been deposited for GITIM (Diploma) 1 year. The application of the complainant has been rejected by the opposite party No.3 on dated 25.8.2012 vide Ex.C9. The relevant portion of Ex.C9 is reproduced:-

“This letter is to inform you that your application has been rejected by India Can Ho. The reason being stated that the minimum requirement of the above mentioned course is 12th pass, due to non fulfillment and producing of documents as per the course requirement, the application to the specified program has been rejected.

Would request you to please get in touch with HO for further details. The amount deposited IMR Rs.5000/- would be refunded or adjusted against other course from India Can as per the requirement and confirmation from your side, else if you wish to continue with the same course-please get in touch with 12th pass requirements.

Would request you to please get in touch with India Can Ho. Post confirmation the amount would be adjusted/refunded accordingly.....”

The complainant has submitted that she has sought admission in ITIM one year diploma course, whereas a perusal of receipt dated 29.6.2012, Ex.C8, shows that the diploma's name is GITIM (Diploma) 1 year. The minimum qualification for GITIM diploma is 10+2. A perusal of Ex.OP3/2 shows that 'Duration:-36 months (Includes 10 months of internship); Eligibility:-Candidate must have completed atleast Class XII. Must be able to comprehend English and Exit Profile:-Enterprise infrastructure specialist' and on page No.2 of Ex.OP3/2, it has been shown that 'The student can pursue 1 year diploma and has options to exist after completing it or continue to pursue the 3 years degree program', for this there is provision that if a student exits from the program after the first year of the program, he would procure a diploma, if the student exists after two years of the program, he would procure an advanced diploma and if the student successfully completes the entire program, he would be entitled to a BCA degree. Thus from the perusal of the documents placed on file it is clear that the minimum qualification for GITIM diploma is 10+2, whereas the qualification of the complainant is 10th only, thus her admission has been rejected and the amount of Rs.6000/- (Rs.5000/- + Rs.1000/-) vide cheque No.003014 dated 24.6.2013 has been refunded to the complainant by the opposite parties.

11. Thus keeping in view the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that on scrutinizing the documents of the complainant the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 found that the basic qualification for the diploma opted by the complainant was 10+2, whereas the complainant is 10th pass only, as soon as this fact came to the knowledge of the opposite parties, they refunded the amount of Rs.6000/- (Rs.5000/- + Rs.1000/-) to the complainant.

12. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus this complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

07-04-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member