DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.87/2015
Sh. Chander Shekar Yadav
I-8, Nanakpura,
New Delhi-110021 ……Complainant
Versus
1. IIPM (The Indian Institute of Planning and Management), Satbari Chandan Huala, Chattarpur, Bhatti Mines Road,
New Delhi – 110074
2. Prof. Arindham Choudhary,
Hony. Dean/Director/Chairman/President of IIPM
Satbari Chandan Huala, Chattarpur,
Bhatti Mines Road,
New Delhi – 110074
3. Mr. Aditya Rajdan
Vice President FM,
Satbari Chandan Huala, Chattarpur,
Bhatti Mines Road,
New Delhi – 110074
4. Dr. M. K. Chaudhary,
Director IIPM
Satbari Chandan Huala, Chattarpur,
Bhatti Mines Road,
New Delhi – 110074.
5. Ms. Hema
Admission Counselor IIPM
Satbari Chandan Huala, Chattarpur,
Bhatti Mines Road,
New Delhi – 110074 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 07.04.15 Date of Order : 02.03.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he was lured by OPs’ tantalizing advertisement in newspaper of March, 2013 to seek admission of his son, namely, Mr. Milan for the integrated BBA + MBA Course for the academic session 2013-16. Accordingly, he visited the office of OPs on 04.04.13 and met OPs No.3 & 5 to do preliminary enquiry about the admission and other details like admission fee, antecedent/credential of OPs. OPs No.3 and 5 painted a rosy picture of their institute and represented 100% campus placement of the students passed out of their institute. The OPs No.3 & 5 persuaded/enticed the Complainant to deposit Rs.1 lakh in advance so as to ensure admission of his son. Accordingly, the Complainant deposited Rs.1 lakh on 08.04.2013 which was acknowledged by the OP No.1 vide communication dated 08.04.13 (copy annexure A-1). The Complainant after making independent inquiry/verification of IIPM was dismayed to find that the OP No.1 is not even recognized by University Grant Commission (UGC) and he felt cheated of being duped of Rs.1 lakh by OP No.1. The Complainant accordingly decided not to seek admission of his son in such an unrecognized money shop (IIPM) and conveyed his intention both in verbal and writing for refund of Rs.1 lakh. The Complainant is said to have made several visits to the office of OP No.1 for refund of Rs.1 lakh and to substantiate this he has attached copies of various communications vide Annexure A-2 (Colly). The Complainant having failed to get any positive response sent another detailed letter by speed post on 21.10.13 to the Director of OP No.1 for the refund of the advance of Rs.1 lakh with 18% interest and cost but in vain. Frustrated by non-response of the OPs, a legal notice was sent to OPs on 16.12.2013 by registered post as per Annexure-3 & 4. The Complainant has also substantiated his claim about non-recognition of OP No.1 (IIPM) through copy of advertisement issued by UGC dated 20.10.2013. All the aforesaid persuasions by the Complainant did no yield any positive result. Aggrieved by the unfair trade practice committed by the OPs, the Complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OPs to refund Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 18% from 08.04.13 till the date of its payment plus Rs.7 lakh towards damages/compensation on account of non-providing no service, misrepresentation, mental torture, agony, harassment, financial loss, legal expenses so incurred by the Complainant.
OP No.1, 2 & 4 have been proceeded exparte vide order dated 03.07.15.
OP No.3 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 08.09.15.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence as well written arguments.
We have heard the Complainant and have also perused the record carefully.
Now, we come to the question, whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
We have carefully gone through the material placed before us and also examined file and arguments put forth by the Complainant.
Undisputably, the Complainant was lured by tantalizing advertisement and assurance of OPs for seeking admission in their institute for integrated BBA/MBA programme under the impression that the institute of the OPs has 100% placement. Accordingly, he paid Rs.1 lakh as advance for the abovesaid course (copy annexure A-1). However, to his utter dismay, he found through personal inquires that the said institute is not even recognized by UGC. The public notification issued by UGC in the Times of India on October, 20, 2013 bears testimony to the allegations that the OP No.1 (IIPM, New Delhi) is not an university within the meaning of section 2 (f) of the UGC Act, 1956 and is neither entitled to award MBA/BBA/BCA degree nor it is recognized by UGC.
The Complainant made various representations to the OPs for refund of his advance of Rs.1 lakh. Ultimately a legal notice was sent by the Complainant through his advocate on 16.12.2013 to the OPs. All the efforts made by the Complainant to seek refund of Rs.1 lakh went in vain.
In view of above discussion, OP No.1 (IIPM, New Delhi ) is to be blamed for causing unfair trade practice in duping the Complainant with false promise of 100% placement after completion of BBA/MBA course and alluring him to deposit Rs.1 lakh as advance for assuring advance in BBA/MBA programme without being authorized to award any degree. Despite continuous efforts/pursuasion by the Complainant, the OP No.1 failed to refund the money deposited in advance by the Complainant on behalf of his son Mr. Milan amounts to unfair trade practice.
We, therefore, allow the complaint and direct the OP No.1 to 2 to refund Rs.1 lakh to the Complainant alongwith 6% simple interest from the date of its deposit i.e. 08.04.13 and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No. 1 and 2 shall become liable to pay interest 8% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its 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 02.03.2016
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
19.9.2015
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.14 lakhs alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its deposit i.e.10.09.2013 till the date of realization. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony undergone by the Complainant including cost of litigations. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Complaint stands disposed off accordingly. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
