Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/85

Aditi Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Institute of Management - Opp.Party(s)

14 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. 85 of 20.01.2022

                                  Date of decision                    :  14.11.2022

 

Aditi Gupta daughter Sanjay Gupta, resident of Railway Road, Nangal, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar, Rupnagar through Sachin  Gupta, son of Sh. Darshan Lal Gupta, resident of House No.545, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar, Rupnagar.  

•  
•  

Chairperson and Board of Directors, Indian Institute of Management, Nagpur, Plot No.1, Sector 20, Mihan (Non-Sez), Nagpur-441108, Maharashtra

…Opposite Party

                                  Complaint under Section 35 of the                                            Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

 

                        SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Sachin Gupta, authorized representative of complainant 

Sh. A.S.Kaulkarni, Adv. For OP

                   ORDER

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the niece of complainant Aditi Gupta, daughter of Sh. Sanjay Gupta, resident of Railway Road, Nangal, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar, has authorized the complainant to file this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act as amended up to date against Chairperson and Board of Directors, Indian Institute of Management, Nagpur, Plot No.1, Sector 20, Mihan Nagpur. Niece of the complainant was preparing for MBA/PGDM entrance admission examination for a long time and had appeared in Common Admission Test i.e. CAT 2020 organized by IIMT on 29.11.2020. This test is common admission test for various prestigious MBA/PGDM colleges in India and admission is done on the basis of the merit score in the entrance examination. Niece of the complainant scored overall 91.08 percentile in this CAT 2020 and got admission offers from various prestigious MBA/PGDM colleges in India including IIM Nagpur for batch of 2021-23. She got intimation of admission and documents verification from IIM Nagpur through mail on 2.7.2021. An offer acceptance fee of Rs.75,000/- was also required to be deposited by 03.07.2021 11 AM as per this letter. It is further stated that since the time given for offer acceptance and acceptance fee payable was less than even 24 hours and an unacceptable clause of forfeiture of fee in case of withdrawal was written in the mail, they were skeptical about the refund in case they could get admission in some better college at a later stage. They made a telephone call to the Post Graduate Programme in charge at PGP office of IIM Nagpur. PGP in charge confirmed/assured them that in case they get admission offer from some better suitable college on or before 6.8.2021, the entire fee will be refunded after deducting processing fee of Rs.1000/- from the total amount deposited as on 6.8.2021. They were told that the forfeiture wording in the admission offer letter was mentioned just to ensure that only genuinely interested candidates apply for the admission to the IIM Nagar. They were also told that all prestigious institute work as per time to time issued guidelines of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and an institute like IIM Nagpur will never spoil its image by retaining the fee of any student against these guidelines issued by Governing Authorities. After getting assurance from the PGO in charge of IIM Nagpur, they tried to search for the time to time issued guidelines of the concerned authorities. They came through time to time issued guidelines in this regard by the said Ministry and all India Council for Technical Education which clearly states that the entire fee will be refunded after deducting processing fee of Rs.1000/- from the total amount deposited by them. Due to the prevailing Pandemic at that time these timelines were further relaxed in subsequently revised calendar by the concerned authorities. After considering all these facts and getting confirmation from the PGP in charge of IIM Nagpur, they deposited an offer acceptance fee of Rs.75,000/- through online transfer dated 3.7.2021. Subsequently another payment of Rs.2,14,000/- through online transfer towards admission to the PGDM course was also deposited on 5.7.20221. A total Rs.2,89,000/- deposited against admission to the PGDM course. It is further stated that later niece of the complainant got admission offer from a better ranked college for PGDM and due to this she withdrew her admission from IIM Nagpur by sending mail in this regard on the official mail ID of the IIM Nagpur. She also spoke to the PGIM in charge of the institute and was assured to get the entire fee refund after deducting processing fee of Rs.1000/- from the total amount deposited as discussed on 3.7.2021.  They were shocked when they received only Rs.50,000/0 against Rs.2,89,000/- deposited amount. They felt cheated and dejected. Refund policy cannot be in violation of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development and All India Council for Technical Education. Hence, this complaint. Vide this instant complaint, the authorized representative of the complainant sought the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. To refund remaining amount of Rs.2,39,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 31.7.2021 and also directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.4,50,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. 
2. Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OP has appeared on behalf of OP and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Court. That the OP is governed by provisions of the IIM Act, 2017 and is an autonomous body not having any affiliation of accreditation from Universities Grant Commission, New Delhi or All India Council for Technical Education; that the complainant while placing reliance of notifications issued by UGC and AICTE ought to have demonstrated that the OP is governed by the Rules and Regulations framed by UGC and AICTE;  that the IIM Nagpur is not a service industry and is engaged in imparting education to the students and hence does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(42) which defines the term “Services”. It is submitted that imparting education does not mean rendering services for consideration, consequently, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act; that provisions of Section 34(2) (b) again reiterate the place where OP actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has branch office, which is wholly in applicable to case in hand and hence no such pleadings are found in the body of complaint; that this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the OP. On merits, it I stated that the complainant has totally mislead this Commission as the actual place of residence of the complainant is Paris as the stamp of Mr. Mohitesh Sharma, Assistant Consulate Officer Embassy of India, Paris is prominently appearing thereon, which makes, it evident on record that the complainant is not residing within the local limit of this Commission. Secondly, the disclaimer stamp affixed thereon can also be seen prominently which categorically provides no responsibility is taken for the contents of the document, therefore, the question arises whether such document can be taken a legal and valid document so as to hold that Shri Sachin son of Darshan Lal Gupta is validly authorized to represent in the present matter. Apart from this on backside of the Ex.14 is document purporting to be letter or authorization. Careful perusal of the same will reveal to this Commission that complainant namely Ms. Aditi Gupta signed the same on 23.4.2022 and Notarial Stamp of Attestation is affixed and is dated 26.5.2022, whereas Ex.15 appears to be dated 17.6.2022. It is further stated that Ex.3 is middle portion clearly cautions the students and the said clause clearly mentions as under :-

Important withdrawal clause

Please also note that this admission offer is being made very close to the registration date for the batch of 2021-23. Accordingly. The acceptance of this offer cannot be withdrawn at a letter date. In case you wish to withdraw this offer, the entire amount paid towards offer acceptance will be forfeited. The complainant was fully aware of this forfeiture clause in this admission process and after going through all the documents relating admission process on her own violation had accepted and offer, which clearly establish that she was all the while conscious of the fact that if she withdraws her admission at a later date, then her money deposited towards fee will stand forfeited. It is also stated that at no point of time any confirmation with regard to refund of fee was given to the complainant and the story was concocted by the complainant is contrary to her conduct and record.

3.    On being called upon to do so, the authorized representative of the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C19 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has suffered a statement that affidavit filed by the OP may be read as part and parcel of his evidence. 

4.    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file especially contents of the complaint, carefully.

5.    Depositing the fee of Rs.2,89,000/- not in dispute in this present complaint. As per Ex.C5, i.e. notification bearing No.14-4/2007-U 3(A) of Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, U.3(A) clearly states that the entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of note more than Rs.1000/- shall be refunded and returned by the institute/University to the Student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would be permission for institutions and universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate in original. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant gets filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable. In Ex.C6 & Ex.C7, it is specifically mentioned that last date for cancellation of admission for courses in PGDM/PGCM institutions including FULL fee refund. Ex.C12 is the RTI Information sought by the complainant and vide this RTI application, the complainant received the information that no seats were vacant as on 01.08.2021 and again she questioned to the IIM Nagpur that how many seats are vacant in IIM Nagpur PGP batch for academic year 2021-23 as on today i.e. 08.12.2021? and IIM answered that No seats are vacant as on 8.12.2021.

       The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record the order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in case titled as Birla Institute of Technology & Science Vs Abhishek Mengi, the Hon’ble National Commission has ordered that OP was deficient and unjustified in its act and has also indulged in an unfair trade practice. Accordingly, it is our considered view that the present case has a lot of merit, substance and weight and it deserves acceptance. Therefore, we accept complaint and decide the same in favour of the complainant and against the OP. The OP is directed to refund to the complainant the balance amount of Rs.47,000/- after deducting Rs.1000/- as service/processing/administrative charges, besides cost of litigation assessed at Rs.10,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the OP would be liable to pay the sum of Rs.46,000/- along with penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of present complaint.

6.    In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint with the directions to the OP to pay the remaining amount to the tune of Rs.2,39,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation with Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP be also directed to comply with the said order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

      

                     ANNOUNCED                                                                     (RANJIT SINGH)

                     Dated: 14.11.2022                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                            (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                                                                         MEMBER