Date of Filing: 11/05/2011
Date of Order: 29/08/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 29th DAY OF AUGUST 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 903 OF 2011
Miss. Vijetha Simha,
D/o. Sri Vasudev Simha,
Aged About 21 years,
R/at: No.301, Premier Residency,
Nanjappa Road, Vidyaranyapura,
BANGALORE-560 097.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri. V.Sanjay Krishna) Complainant.
-V/s-
1) Indian Institute of Planning Management
Rep. by its Dean and Director,
Dr. Malay Chaudhuri, IIPM Corporate Office,
D-r, Level-4, Rectangle-1, Behind Select
City Walk, Saket District Centre,
New Delhi-110 017.
2) Indian Institute of Planning Management
Rep. by its Hon. Dean Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri,
No.419, 100 Feet Road, Next to Canara Bank,
Koramangala Bangalore.
3) ISBE (IIPM School of Business and Economy)
Rep. by is Dean Mr. Jaya Chandra,
No.419, 100 feet Road, Next to Canara Bank,
Koramangala, Bangalore.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri. Sandeep Patil) Opposite parties.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,25,286/-, are necessary:-
The complainant after completing BBM in Maharani Laxmiammani College for women, Bangalore in April-May 2010 wanted to continue her studies in MBA approached the opposite parties, paying Rs.1,000/- got the prospectus from the opposite parties for the academic year 2010-2011. The opposite parties had represented that it was a full time post graduation course with MBA degree. Accordingly she had applied on 05.07.2010. She received the letter from the third opposite party informing that she was selected for full time post graduate programme in planning and entrepreneurship – session 2010-2012. Accordingly the complainant paid the non-refundable amount of Rs.25,000/- on 10.07.2010 by DD and Rs.1,12,000/- on 26.07.2010 towards tuition fee and caution refundable deposit. The complainant had approached Vijaya Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bangalore for educational loan which wanted “two years full time post graduate master of business administration course” to sanction loan. Accordingly the complainant approached the opposite party which issued the certificate dated: 25.04.2009 issued by the M.S. University of Tamilnadu. Accordingly the loan was sanctioned by the Bank, but before that the complainant had paid the amount to the opposite party. In the month of October-2010 the complainant was required to pay the second installment of tuition fee of Rs.1,11,000/- which was paid by her by way of DD dated: 19.10.2010. When the complainant wanted to pay the third installment of tuition fee she learnt that the M.S. University of Tamilnadu was not empowered to establish campus centers or affiliate colleges beyond its territorial jurisdiction, despite that she was made to believe by the opposite parties that the programme is a “full time post graduate course”. Upon further verification it was found that UGC has issued a public notice dated: 18.03.2010 in this regard. The opposite parties despite knowing fully well that it could not offer a full time course of a post graduate degree to be awarded by M.S. University has circulated the certificate said to have been issued by the M.S. University. The course that was offered was distincte mode as opposed to its representation that it is a full time course. The complainant submits that the Opposite parties have rendered deficiency in service to the complainant despite receiving huge service charges from her by not providing a full time course as represented. The Opposite parties had made the complainant to pay the following charges with their representation of providing a “full time course”.
- Rs.2,23,000 towards tuition fees,
- Rs.25,000/- towards retention fee,
- Rs.1000/- towards prospectus fee,
- Rs.1000/- towards refundable caution deposit for liberty etc.,
- In all amounting to sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
Hence the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite parties has to be refunded with damages, costs and interest. Hence the complaint.
2(a). In brief the version of the opposite party No.1 are:-
The first opposite party was established in the year 1973 and it offers 1/2/3 years full time programme in planning and entrepreneurship for graduate and under-graduate students. The courses are essentially non-professional and non-technical certificate courses. The certificate courses conducted by the first opposite party in Planning and Entrepreneurship do not require any approval from All India Council for Technical Education nor does it require registration under the Karnataka Education Act. The complainant has enrolled for two years programme in planning and Entrepreneurship from the third opposite party. The third opposite party is a constituent unit of the first opposite party. The version of the third opposite party be read as version of this opposite party. None of the allegations made in the complaint give rise to cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complaint is not maintainable. The allegations to the contrary are denied.
2(b). In brief the version of the opposite party No.2 are:-
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri, the Honorary Director of the IIPM Think Tank cannot represent the second opposite party. The opposite party No.2 adopts the version filed by the third opposite party.
2(c). In brief the version of third opposite party are:-
The complainant is not a consumer. There is no service. There is no deficiency in service and, it is not a consumer dispute at all. The program of the IIPM was conceptualized in 1973 keeping in mind the unfortunate fact that education in India till then had still remained primarily oriented towards the needs of the private sector and had overlooked the specific requirements of the public sector. Accordingly the IIPM is aimed at developing the students personality in pursuit of knowledge, in commitment to economic, social and cultural upliftment of masses and in cultivation of taste for literature, fine arts etc,. It is conducting Non-professional and Non-technical certificate courses. The courses offered are 1/2/3 year full-time program in planning and entrepreneurship for graduate and undergraduate students. The course are wider coverage than MBA courses because of its integration with national economic planning and a compulsory marketing specialization making it the most intellectually stimulating course. The course of planning and entrepreneurship conducted by the IIPM does not require any approval from All India Council for Technical Education. The third opposite party is the unit of the IIPM offers 2/3 years post-graduate and under graduate level certificate programs in planning and entrepreneurship to prospective students in the year 2009. IIPM also has collaborated with the south India’s famous University called M.S. University which is State owned university and recognized by UGC, Association of Universities and Ministry of Human Resource Development, through their Directorate of Distance Education. All centers of IIPM/ISBE/ICHE are now the onsite academic partner institutions of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu (M.S. University). The Memorandum of Understanding entered with the M.S. University authorizes IIPM to conduct MBA and BBA courses of M.S. University in industry interface under technical collaboration arrangement for all its centers in face to face mode. The IIPM offers the course curriculum of M.S. University as onsite academic partner institution approved by standing committee on academic affairs and syndicate of M.S. University. The IIPM has started its operations in Bangalore from August 2003 and has started offering ISBE/ICHE programs since 2009-10 batches onwards wherein other than ISBE/ICHE certificates, the enrolled students, also additionally can apply for MBA/BBA programs in industry interface of M.S. University trough their Directorate of Distance and continuing Education. The M.S. University is also dual mode university and approved by Indira Gandhi National Open University to offer Distance Education all over India. The IIPM is presently running in 18 centers covers 600 faculty members and staff and has 4000 students. In IIPM Bangalore center nearly 390 students are perusing post graduate courses and 77 students are in undergraduate programs for the academic session of 2010-12/13. The complainant had enrolled for two years full time program in planning and entrepreneurship. Every student who is enrolled in this program is entitled for a certificate from ISBE and in addition thereto they will be awarded MBA (Industry interface) from M.S. University. As on the day 161 students have enrolled themselves for ISBE programme. The IIPM has always given full disclosure about its courses, credentials etc and has always maintained total transparency regarding the courses offered. It has FAQ (frequently asked questions) page uploaded on their website hyperlink http://www.iipm.edu which deals with all kind of queries about the institution and the courses offered. The prospectus given to the students clearly shows these details. Even the complainant was also provided FAQ and the prospectus. The course-post graduate programme in planning and entrepreneurship is a two year full time course. Every student enrolled in the said course has to attend the classes regularly on a daily basis and must take up all the assignments incorporated in the curriculum. After the completion of the said course, the IIPM offers its own certification. In addition thereto, if the student has also enrolled with the M.S. University, Tirunelveli, then he/she will also be awarded Master of Business Administration (industry Interface). The degree is awarded by M.S. University. It has never been claimed otherwise either by IIPM or by its constituent units. The complainant is fully aware of the nature of the course and the degree to be awarded. Accordingly he enrolled in the said programme. The complainant has not shown any interest in the course and has not appeared for her end term exams. The institute had made every effort to help her in picking up with the course curricular. The complainant was unable to pick up the course, she decided to quit the course. The complainant has also demanded refund of the tuition fee and return of the original documents. The opposite party returned her original documents and orally communicated to her that though they are not bound to refund the tuition fee they are considering her case for refund of the amount on humanitarian grounds. For her own default and incapacity to complete the course she cannot be allowed to make unjust enrichment on account of her own folly. At the instigation of certain vested interests, the complainant along with seven other students tried to create ruckus in the institution and disrupt the normal conducting of the course. Accordingly the opposite party has filed a suit for permanent injunction and the Hon’ble court has granted injunction against the complainant and others from disrupting the conducting of the courses. Hence as a counter blast this complaint is filed by the complainant.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective documents. The complainant has filed her affidavit. The opposite parties have submitted that their version and their documents be read as their evidence which was permitted. Accordingly the arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complaint as brought against the second opposite party is not maintainable/bad for misjoinder of parties?
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is deficiency in service?
- What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A) to (D):As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (D):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the first opposite party is an institute registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was established in the year 1973 and it offers 1/2/3 year full time programme in planning and entrepreneurship for graduate and under-graduate students. It is non-professional and non-technical certificate courses. The said course do not require any approval from All India Council for Technical Education. Further the first opposite party has its units at several places in India including of the 3rd opposite party and the third opposite party. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had paid Rs.1,000/- on 03.07.2010 to the third opposite party and obtained the prospectus of the course offered by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3.
7. It is also an undisputed fact that the complainant never stated on what date she had applied for? For which course? Anyway the opposite party No.3 has written a letter to the complainant on 05.07.2010 stating that the complainant has been selected for admission and she has to pay certain fees towards the course that has been offered. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had paid Rs.25,000/- non-refundable retention fee on 10.07.2010 to the opposite party No.3 and paid towards the tuition fee on 27.07.2010. It is also an admitted fact that the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University (M.S. University) situated in Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu has issued a certificate to the opposite party No.1 stating that the opposite party No.1 is an onsite academic partner institution of the M.S. University (API Code No. MSUYOF010) to conduct the two year full time Master of Business Administration (Industry Interface), Bachelor of Business Administration (Industry Interface) and Bachelor of Computer Applications (Industry Interface) from the Academic year 2009-2010 on 25.04.2009. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has paid the second installment fee to the third opposite party on 21.10.2010 the amount of Rs.1,11,000/-. The complainant had not paid the third installment fee.
8. It is also an undisputed fact that the complainant had not completed the course nor studied now he complainant wants refund of the amount paid by her and also compensation and interest, on the ground that the opposite parties have assured that the course is full time course of M.S. University, but in fact it is a distance learning programme and the M.S. University cannot conduct any in-house coaching at any other places other than their university at Tirunelveli and as the opposite parties have conducted classes outside Tamil Nadu at Bangalore it is a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
9. Before going to consider further what is the prospectus, what is the assurance that has been made by the opposite party, let us consider whether the representation of the second opposite party as brought is maintainable. In this case second opposite party is being represented by Prof: Arindam Chaudhuri, the Honorary Director of IIPM Think Tank and residing in the said address stated in the cause-title with respect to opposite party No.2. It is not any office of the second opposite party or the office of the first opposite party address stated at in the cause-title with respect to opposite party No.2. When the first opposite party is represented by the Dean and Director, how can the Think Tank Director of the first opposite party at Bangalore could represent either the first opposite party or the second opposite party? He is only an academician and not in the administration. Hence the complaint as brought against the second opposite party is not maintainable. Further in what way the second opposite party is concerned to this case? there is no answer. The unit of the first opposite party is at the third opposite party and not of the second opposite party. None of the documents produced by the complainant are executed or signed by the second opposite party. No allegations are made against the second opposite party in this regard. Hence the complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. Hence the complaint as against the second opposite party is not maintainable as rightly contended.
10. Now let us consider whether the third opposite party have done any deficiency in service. In the sense whether the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 have misrepresented or misassured the complainant with respect to the MBA course of M.S. University. First of all the complainant has produced the Xerox copy of the alleged Deccan Herald news paper. This document does not contain that it is of a particular date or month or year of the Deccan Herald news paper. In any event it does not say that the courses conducted by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 of M.S. University is of in-house course and they are eligible to conduct courses of MBA at their campus at Bangalore and in-house teaching is given and MBA degree of M.S. university will be offered. The only thing that this advertisement states “making him eligible for MBA degree” that’s all. It does not say that they are conducting the classes of MBA the in-house classes and they were permitted to conduct the MBA classes at Bangalore of M.S. University.
11. In a case between LIC of India –V/s- Prashant Ramlingan Gurav reported in 2011 CTJ 382 the Hon’ble National Commission has ruled thus:-
“The brochure of a particular insurance policy can neither be treated as a part of the agreement between the parties nor the terms set out in it can be the conditions of that policy”.
That means the brochure or the paper advertisement can neither be treated as a part of contract between the parties, nor the terms set-out therein could be termed as conditions agreed between the parties. Here the opposite party never agreed, never assured the complainant that, they will be conducting in-house MBA course and it is a full-time course of M.S. University in their campus Bangalore. This paper is of no assistance to the complainant.
12. The complainant has paid the amount of Rs.1,000/- on 03.07.2010 for getting the prospectus of the opposite parties and obtained the prospectus. What are the courses that are offered and what is the tuition of the courses etc., or which university etc., are enumerated in the prospectus and the courses that has been offered. According to this the courses offered by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 are “1/2/3 year full-time Programme In Planning and Entrepreneurship” for graduate and undergraduate students. This is a full-time post graduate course and they are awarding the MBA of M.S. University, Tamilnadu. The complainant has produced only the page-15 of prospectus reads thus:-
But why the complainant has suppressed page-14 and 19 of the prospectus? There is no answer. That means the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands as rightly contended. The opposite party No.3 at para-4 and 5 have stated thus:-
“As stated above, IIPM was established in 1973 and ever since then it has been engaged in conducting Non-Professional and Non-Technical Certificate Courses. The courses offered by Plaintiff are 1/2/3 year full-time program in planning and entrepreneurship for graduate and undergraduate students. The IIPM programs today are regarded as the only course with a wider coverage than MBA courses because of its integration with national economic planning and a compulsory marketing specialization making it the most intellectually stimulating course. The IIPM has always aimed to create a new generation of entrepreneurial managers who can face with confidence emerging challenges of international markets. The courses of planning and entrepreneurship conducted by the IIPM does not require any approval from All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) as the courses are not in ‘technical education’ and the IIPM is not a ‘technical institution’. IIPM conducts its own certificate program in national economic planning and entrepreneurship (a non-professional and non-technical course). The courses conducted are innovated, conceptualized and developed by IIPM itself. Other than IIPM’s own certification, International Management Institute, Belgium, academic partner of IIPM, awards post graduate and undergraduate degrees to the eligible students of IIPM. Further, Indian School of Business and Economy (ISBE) – the Answering opposite party and IIPM Centre for Higher Education (ICHE) constituent units of IIPM, also offer 2/3 year post-graduate and under graduate level certificate programs in planning and entrepreneurship to prospective students who are willing to study MBA/BBA level curriculum. It is submitted that in 2009, IIPM also has collaborated with south India’s famous University called M.S. University, which is State owned University and recognized by UGC, Association of Universities (AIU) and Ministry of Human Resource Development, through their Directorate of Distance Education.
All centers of the IIPM/ISBE/ICHE are now the onsite academic partner institutions of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu (M.S. University). The Memorandum of Understanding entered with the M.S. University authorized IIPM to conduct MBA and BBA courses of M.S. University in industry interface under technical collaboration arrangement for all its centers in face to face mode. IIPM offers the course curriculum of M.S. University as onsite academic partner institution approved by standing committee on academic affairs and syndicate of M.S. University. IIPM has started its operations in Bangalore from August-2003 and has started offering ISBE/ICHE programs since 2009-10 batches onwards wherein other than ISBE/ICHE certificates, the enrolled students, also additionally can apply for MBA/BBA programs in industry interface of M.S. University through their Directorate of Distance and continuing Education. The M.S. University is also dual mode university and approved by Indira Gandhi National Open University to offer Distance Education all over India. A copy of the certificate issued by the M.S. University certifying that all 18 centers of IIPM are onsite academic partner institutions of the University is also produced.
None of these things are challenged or denied by the complainant. That means to say that the opposite parties are conducting non-professional and non-technical courses of programme in Planning and Entrepreneurship, it has a wider coverage in MBA because of its national economic planning and a compulsory marketing specialization making it the most intellectual stimulating course it do not require any partner from the university or AICTE and as per the Memorandum of understandings with M.S. University it was authorized to conduct MBA onsite and this meaning that it is a distant learning programme with respect to MBA degree along with the course that has been conducted by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3.
13. The M.S. University has issued a certificate to the opposite party document No.3 which reads thus:-
That means opposite parties are conducting the course to which if the students are admitted they will be enrolled for the MBA course under the M.S. University (industry interface) programme that means it is only an additional degree that has been given by the M.S. University and the course that will be conducted by the opposite party is with respect to the programme in Planning and Entrepreneurship and for that they give the certificate.
14. The allegations of the opposite party made in the counter are not challenged or denied by the complainant anywhere. In AIR 1976 Goa 49 it has been ruled thus:-
Specific plea taken in the written statement, not met by counter plea or evidence by plaintiff, Held that defendant should succeed in his plea.
That is to say if any specific plea is taken by the opposite party in their version if does not met by the counter plea or evidence then the version of the opposite party has to be accepted and the complaint has to be dismissed. This in all force applies to this case. None of the matters traversed or denied by the complainant.
15. The opposite party has written to the complainant about his selection to the course run by it on 05.07.2010. The said document is produced by the complainant at document No.5. The relevant portion of the said letter reads thus:-
The fee structure that has been sent to the complainant reads thus:-
That is to say the opposite party has told the complainant that she has been selected for the full-time Post-Graduate Programme In Planning and Entrepreneurship. It never stated that it is conducting a full time course in MBA of M.S. University at Bangalore. Further it has stated that retention fee of Rs.25,000/- will not be refunded if paid and what is the fees that has to be paid by the complainant. That means the opposite party never assured the complainant that it is conducting a full-time MBA course of M.S. University at Bangalore.
15. The complainant attended the classes and has paid the first installment fee on 25.07.2010, paid the second installment fee on 21.10.2010; for three months she has attended the classes. If really the opposite parties have cheated her or did any untoward thing with respect to the M.S. University MBA course; why she has attended the classes for three months? There is no answer.
16. Further it is also an undisputed fact that the opposite parties have fully disclosed about their courses in the frequently asked questions and up-loaded it on their websites hyperlink http://www.iipm.edu and this is also given to the complainant. Even according to this the opposite parties have clearly stated their courses is full-time courses and MBA degree that will be added is a distant learning one i.e., onsite learning. The said FAQ in the website reads thus:-
The complainant has not challenged it nor denied it.
17. Further the opposite party at Para-9 and 10 has stated thus:-
The Complainant having enrolled for the 2 years full-time program in Planning & Enterpreneurship has not shown any interest in the course and has not appeared for her end term exams. Despite this, the Institute is making every effort so as to help her in picking up with the course curricular. However, as the complainant was unable to pick up the course, she decided to quit the course. The complainant has also demanded refund of the tuition fee & return of the original documents. The Institute has already returned back to her all the original documents and has orally communicated to the complainant that her request for refund is being considered. It is pertinent to submit here that, even though the institute is not obligated to refund any amount to any student in the event of discontinuing the course, on humanitarian grounds the complainant’s request for refund is being considered.
The complainant cannot claim as a matter of right, for refund of the fees paid at the time of admission into the course. The complainant is not justified in seeking compensation for discontinuing the course which is on account of her own default and incapacity to complete the course. The complainant cannot be allowed to make unjust enrichment on account of her own folly. Moreover, at the instigation of certain vested interests, as the complainant along with seven other students tried to create ruckus in the Institution and disrupt the normal conducting of the course, the Answering opposite party was constrained to approach the Civil Court for Permanent injunction. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the complainant and other students from conducting any demonstration or agitations so as to disrupt the conducting of the courses. A copy of the temporary injunction order passed against the complainant is annexed herewith.
This is also not challenged or denied by the complainant. That means the complainant could not pickup with the course curricular though the opposite parties wanted to help her still she wanted the amount back, which the opposite parties were considering it, but the complainant with 6 to 7 others made galata, hence an order was passed by the 5th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No.2589/2007 restraining the complainant and others from holding any strike in the campus of the opposite party No.3 or causing obstruction to the staff or the institution on 07.04.2011. Only after the said order as a counter blast this complaint is filed before this forum on 11.05.2011 as rightly contended. The complainant may take advantage of the concession shown by the opposite party No.3, but she cannot compel the opposite parties to refund the money, because of her, own fault she has discontinued. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
18. Here the opposite party is an educational institution. It is not selling any commodity. It is only imparting education. Here the complainant has not purchased any goods nor hired the services of the opposite party. Here there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, it gives certificate of courses in addition to it, a MBA degree onsite course of M.S. University and the complainant herself is unable to cope up with the courses, wanted to discontinue and made galata, though the opposite parties was considerate in considering the request of her, for refund of the money, the complainant with her Goonda temperamented students made galata in the premises for which the opposite parties obtained an order of injunction, after a month later, she filed this complaint as counter blast. Thus looking from any angle she is not a consumer nor there is any deficiency in service. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 29th Day of August 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
