Haryana

Sonipat

CC/445/2015

Deepak Sharma S/o Hari Parkash Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Institute of Management Technology - Opp.Party(s)

Harinder Rana

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.445 of 2015

Instituted on: 07.12.2015                 

Date of order: 06.04.2016

 

Deepak Sharma son of Hariprakash Sharma, r/o H.N o.801, near GVM Girls College Gate no.2, Chintpurni Basti, Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

1.Institute of Management Technology, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad UP through its Vice Chancellor.

2.Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurudwara road, Sonepat.

                                  …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.Harminder Rana, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Sunil Bhatnagar, Adv. for respondent no.1.

Sh.Trilochan Mago Adv. for Respt. No.2.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he had taken admission in the course of PGDM (DCP) program at IMT Ghaziabad  and was deposited Rs.50,000/- vide DD no.337068 dated 17.4.2015 and receipt no.038228 dated 21.4.2015 was issued by the respondent.  The name of the complainant was proposed by the Management for the admission in the institute at Dubai and it was offered that the finance for the purpose of study will also be arranged by way of loan because they have tie up with the respondent no.2.   The complainant became ready for further study at Dubai with the condition that if the facilities of the institution as stated by respondent no.1 will not be fulfilled by the institution, he will again migrated at Ghaziabad for further studies.  The complainant get the loan of Rs.20 lacs from the respondent no.2 and has paid the first installment of Rs.5,96,629/- to the respondent no.1 vide receipt dated 9.5.2015.  The complainant went for study at IMT Dubai on 3.7.2015 but after few days, the complainant fell ill due to poor hostel facilities and after critical condition, he has approached the respondent no.1 to migrate him to their institute at Ghaziabad, but the respondent no.1 has refused to do so and they also refused to refund the fee amount and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and so, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared and have filed their separately written statement.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant at his own has chosen to get admission in his desire course and thereafter he left the study at his own peril after a period of one month 20 days. The prospect of the admission to the desire course of the complainant clearly define that the study shall be commenced in Dubai.  The complainant has carefully read all the terms and conditions and has availed an education loan from the respondent no.2 after entering into a separate agreement with respondent no.2.  The policy for regarding refund of fee clearly define that the fee will be refunded in the following cases:-

i)On request received from the date of start of the academic session and seat could be filled by the institution before the cut off date, the entire fee less Rs.1000/- shall be refunded and in case of DCP AED a sum of AED 100 will be deducted,

ii)On request received before/after the start of the academic session and seat could not be filled by the institute, no refund except security deposit will be applicable.  The complainant has already availed the admission and has started his education and it was his afterthought to discontinue his education after 14.6.2015 while the academic session has started from 15.6.2015. No facts about the admission were ever hidden by the respondent no.1 and the complainant after thoroughly reading and understanding the terms and conditions has taken the admission in his desired course PGDM(DCP) for studying in Dubai and has made the payment of the prescribed fee. The respondent no.1 has never assured or promised to the complainant to migrate him at its Institute of IMT Ghaziabad on any pre-fixed condition.   The allegations regarding poor quality of food as alleged by the complainant is wrong and false.  Non of the student have fallen ill because of any inferior quality of food and facilities.   The respondent no.1 has explained its inability to transfer or migrate him in any other institute in the middle of the academic year.  The complainant has suppressed the true and material facts from the Hon’ble Court and thus, he is not entitled for any relief and compensation and has prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.1.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that  the complainant was sanctioned education loan for Rs.20 lacs and the respondent no.2 had released first installment of Rs.596629/- to the respondent no.1.  In case of non payment of the loan amount, the respondent no.2 is entitled to recover the loan amount from the complainant. The complainant, however, has deposited Rs.4 lacs with the respondent no.2 against the outstanding loan amount. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.2.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and have perused the entire relevant documents available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

         We very carefully and minutely have also perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1.

         In the present case, respondent no.2 has submitted that no deficiency in service has been alleged by the complainant against the respondent no.2. The complainant was sanctioned education loan for Rs.20 lacs and the respondent no.2 had released first installment of Rs.596629/- to the respondent no.1.  In case of non payment of the loan amount, the respondent no.2 is entitled to recover the loan amount from the complainant. The complainant, however, has deposited Rs.4 lacs with the respondent no.2 against the outstanding loan amount. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.2.

          We find force in the contentions raised by the respondent no.2 and has come to the conclusion that dispute involves in the present case is in between the complainant and respondent no.1 and we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, we straightaway dismiss the present complaint qua respondent no.2.

         Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 or not?

         In our view, there is patent deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and it is duly proved from the evidence led by the complainant in support of his case.  We find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the complainant that a person who invested the huge amount for getting higher education in the abroad, cannot resile by frustrating his purpose, until and unless there are some reasons beyond his control. Similar is the position in the case in hand because the complainant went for study at IMT Dubai on 3.7.2015 but after few days, the complainant fell ill due to poor hostel facilities and after critical condition, he has approached the respondent no.1 to migrate him to their institute at Ghaziabad, but the respondent no.1 has refused to do so and they also refused to refund the fee amount.  In support of his contention, he has placed on record the medical certificate dated 10.3.2016 marked as ‘JN’ wherein the doctor has mentioned that Deepak son of Hari Parkash is suffering from frequent attacks of gastroentenlis  since the last eight months.

          The respondent no.1 has placed on record the copy of some e-mails marked as RW1/5 wherein it has been mentioned that “Deepak Sharma has gone through consultation and treatment and is on medication.  Similarly in another e-mail, it is mentioned that “Father of Student Deepak Sharma of CDP joined this year spoke over the phone that Deepak Sharma is not feeling well at IMT Dubai campus.  Further the father of the complainant has sent an e-mail mentioning therein that “You are intimated that my son is ill in your college in Dubai.  He is not feeling well. You are requested to provide him medical help immediately.”

          This document RW1/5 placed on record by the respondent no.1, speaks against the respondent no.1 and totally favours the complainant.  Further this document proves that in the campus at Dubai, the atmosphere and environment to some extent has not suited the complainant and that’s why he remained ill.

          The respondent no.1 has also failed to produce any list which may go to prove that after the vacation of the seat by the complainant in their institution, the seat left by the complainant remained vacant or it was filled by any other student.

          The complainant by way of present complaint has sought the relief to direct the respondent no.1 to migrate the complainant at his institution situated at Ghaziabad or to refund the fee of Rs.5,96,629/- received by them illegally.

          As far as the refund of fee is concerned, keeping in view the authoritative decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, no direction for refund of the fee can be given to the institution.

          But as far as the direction to migrate the complainant, is concerned, in our view the ends of justice would be fully met if this direction is given to the respondent no.1.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to migrate the complainant in coming session at his institution situated at Ghaziabad.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1.

Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

Prabha Wati Member                     Nagender Singh

DCDRF SNP                              President, DCDRF

                                             SNP.

ANNOUNCED 06.04.2016