DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.251/2016
Sh. Viqar Ahmad,
S/o Esrar Ahmad,
R/o 401, 2594/4, Guru Chamber,
Bedonpura, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
….Complainant
Versus
- IIPM (Indian Institute of Planning & Management)
Internationa Campus, Satbari, Chandan Haula, Chatterpur, Bhatimines Road, New Delhi -110074.
- Prof. Arindam Chaudhary
Hony. Dean Centre for Economics Research & Advance Studies, IIPM Founder Director IIPM, IIPM International Campus
Satbari, Chandan Haula, Chatterpur,
Bhatimines Road, New Delhi-110074
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 03.08.2016 Date of Order : 11.09.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Kiran Kaushal
Brief facts pleaded by the complainant are:
1.1 That the complainant Shri Viqar Ahmad took admission for higher education in the educational institution Indian Institute of Planning Management (IIPM) referred to as OP-1 whose director is Professor Arindam Choudhary hereinafter referred to as OP-2. The complainant got lured by the glossy advertisement and impressive prospectus of the OP’s institute and took admission in the institute for full time post graduate programme in Planning Entrepreneurship, for session 2011-2013 Delhi. Complainant claims that he paid full course/ programme fee including the retention fee, of Rs.4,85,020/- including non-refundable retention fees of Rs.40,250/-. The complainant submits that he took education loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce to pay the fee.
1.2 That after the admission complainant joined classes and was surprised when no semester examinations were held. When year 2011 was about to end, other students along with the complainant raised their voices against the management. It was then that the OP told the students that they were having some problems with University Grants Commission (U.G.C.). Later by the end of 2011 OPs conducted semester exam in Gulbarga University but the result was not declared. Again in 2012, it was only after students agitation that OPs held semester examination in Mahatama Gandhi University and took exam for all the four semesters at the same time. It is pertinent to mention here that till date after lapse of five years no degree or certificate of post graduate programme in Planning and Entrepreneurship has been given to the complainant.
1.3 In 2015, the complainant waiting for certificate or degree was shocked to read a public notice dated 31.07.2010 whereby UGC had informed the students and public at large that “IIPM New Delhi is not a university within the meaning of section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission act 1956. Further as per the section 22 of UGC Act 1956, IIPM New Delhi does not have right to conferring or granting degrees as specified by the UGC under section 22(3) of the UGC Act. It is further clarified for the information that IIPM neither entitled to award BA/BBA/BCA degree nor it is recognized by UGC, MHRD and AICTE”.
1.4 In 2015 itself, the complainant also got to know that Andhra Pradesh State Counsel of Higher Education vide letter dated 17.07.2010 wrote to OPs for illegally running IIPM in Andhra Pradesh without being recognized as a statutory body.
1.5 The complainant thus prays that OPs be directed to pay :-
- Rs.4,85,020/- fees paid by the complainant to the OPs.
- Rs.4,51,722/- as interest on the fees paid from 2012 till date.
- The complainant further prays that Rs.5,00,000/- should also be paid by OPs as compensation because complainant being a student suffered huge academic loss and mental harassment.
- Rs.11,000/- should be paid to the complainant towards legal cost and other expenses.
2. Notice was duly served to the OPs, but no one put an appearance on behalf of the OPs to contest the case of the complainant. Hence, OPs were proceeded exparte vide order dated 17.05.2017.
3. Complainant filed exparte evidence as well as exparte written arguments. The complainant reiterates whatever is stated in the complaint as well in evidence by way of affidavit.
4. The complainant has supported his case by placing on record Annexure-A as a copy of prospectus, Annexure-B copy of payment receipt / details, Annexure-C copy of marksheets, Annexure-D copy of UGC public notice and other supporting documents Annexure-E copy of notice by the Andhra Pradesh Government.
5. Arguments on behalf of the complainant have been heard and record perused.
6. Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.
7. It is quite evident from the complaint that the complainant joined the OPs institute for a full time post graduate programme in Planning Entrepreneurship for the session of 2011-2013.
8. The complainant on 25.01.2011 paid Rs. 40,250/- as retention fees in cash. Further rest of the fee i.e. Rs.4,44,770/- was paid in four installments. The OPs did not conduct any semester examination till the end of year 2011 and it was only after students agitation that they held semester exams under Gulbarga University whereby no result was declared for that semester.
9. The complainant further contends that again till end of 2012 OP did not conduct any semester exam and it was after lot of hue and cry and protest by the students that OP held the exams for four semesters together under the aegis of Mahatama Gandhi University, Meghalaya. It is pertinent to note that mark sheet of only three semester exam held in 2012 have been placed on record.
10. Later the complainant got to know about public notice issued by University Grants Commission dated 31.7.2010 whereby students and public at large were informed that “IIPM New Delhi is not a university within the meaning of section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Further as per section 22 of the University Grants Commission, Act, 1956 the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), New Delhi does not have right of conferring or granting degrees as specified by the University Grants Commission under Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission Act. It is further clarified for information that Indian Institute of Planning and Management is neither entitle to award BA/BBA/BCA degree nor it is recognized by UGC, MHRD and AICTE”.
11. Complainant placed on record another letter dated 19.07.2010 by Andhra Pradesh State Counsel Higher Education wherein explanation is sought from IIPM, Hyderabad alleging that the institution has been functioning by offering various academic programmes violating the provisions of AP Education Act and Regulations of the Central Agencies.
12. It cannot be denied that the complainant attended and took exams for one year i.e. 2011 to 2012 but nothing has been placed on record to show that the complainant attended classes and took exams for the year 2012-2013.
13. It is an obvious case of misrepresentation on behalf of the respondents and amounts to unfair trade practice as OPs very well knowing since 2010 that it is no longer a university and it can neither award any BA/BBA/BCA degree nor it is recognized by UGC, MHRD and AICTE. Despite knowing this fact, OPs still admitted the complainant in question and charged fees for full two years course. This amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency of service. The complaint is, thus, allowed with direction to OPs to pay full fees i.e. Rs.4,85,020/- paid by the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 14.11.2011 till the date of realization and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and legal expenses.
14. OPs are directed to pay the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OPs shall become liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from 14.11.2011 till the date of 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 11.09.18.
Devendra
