Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/47/2014

Jitender Kumar S/o. Roshan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Institute Of Vertex Technology - Opp.Party(s)

Tejveer Dhingra

07 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

Complaint Case No.39 of 2014

                                                                                    Date of Institute: 20.01.2014

                                                                                    Date of Decision: 07.10.2016

 

                                                   

Sohan Lal aged about 20 years son of Shri Chohal Ram, resident of village Baindi, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                        ..Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Institute of Vertex Technology, Radaur, 52^nd Milestone. S.K. Radaur Road, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar (092), through its Principal.

 

2. DTE, Haryana and AICTE New Delhi.

                                                                                                                        …Respondents.

 

2^nd Complaint

 

Complaint Case No.40 of 2014

Date of Institute: 20.01.2014

Date of Decision: 07.10.2016

           

Pawan Kumar aged about 23 years son of Shri Om Parkash, aged about 23 years, resident of village Jhaguri, P.O. Baindi, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                         ….Complainant

 

                                               Versus

 

1. Institute of Vertex Technology, Radaur, 52^nd Milestone. S.K. Radaur Road, Radur, District Yamuna Nagar (092), through its Principal.

 

2. DTE, Haryana and AICTE New Delhi.

                                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

 

3^rd Complaint

Complaint Case No.45 of 2014

Date of Institute: 20.01.2014

Date of Decision: 07.10.2016

                                                   

Sourabh aged about 22 years son of Shri Vidya Sagar, resident of House No.1113F, Tagore Garden, Near Bus Stand Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                        ..Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Institute of Vertex Technology, Radaur, 52^nd Milestone. S.K. Radaur Road, Radur, District Yamuna Nagar (092), through its Principal.
2. DTE, Haryana and AICTE New Delhi.

                                                                                                                        …Respondents.

4^th Complaint

Complaint Case No.46 of 2014

Date of Institute: 20.01.2014

Date of Decision: 07.10.2016

                                                   

Monu aged about 21 years son of Shri Shyam Sunder resident of House No.420, Kalyan Nagar, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                        ..Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Institute of Vertex Technology, Radaur, 52^nd Milestone. S.K. Radaur Road, Radur, District Yamuna Nagar (092), through its Principal.

 

2. DTE, Haryana and AICTE New Delhi.

                                                                                                                         …Respondents.

 

5^th Complaint

Complaint Case No.47 of 2014

Date of Institute: 20.01.2014

Date of Decision: 07.10.2016

                                                   

 

Jitender Kumar aged about 24 years son of Shri Roshan Lal resident of village Khanpuri, P.O. Baloli, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                        ..Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Institute of Vertex Technology, Radaur, 52^nd Milestone. S.K. Radaur Road, Radur, District Yamuna Nagar (092), through its Principal.

 

2. DTE, Haryana and AICTE New Delhi.

                                                                                                                        …Respondents.

 

6^th Complaint

Complaint Case No.48 of 2014

Date of Institute: 20.01.2014

Date of Decision: 07.10.2016

           

Satish Kumar aged about 24 years son of Shri Hari Singh resident of village Jhiwerheri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                      ...Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Institute of Vertex Technology, Radaur, 52^nd Milestone. S.K. Radaur Road, Radur, District Yamuna Nagar (092), through its Principal.

 

2. DTE, Haryana and AICTE New Delhi.

                                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GARG..... PRESIDENT.

                        SHRI S.C. SHARMA……………….MEMBER

 

Present:           Shri Tejvir Dhingra, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shri N.S. Rana, Advocate for OP No.1

                        None for OP No.2.

 

ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg, President).

 

1                      This order will dispose of six (6) complaints bearing CC no. 39/2014 40/2014, 45/2014, 46/2014, 47/2014 and 48/2014, filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vide this common judgment, as the facts and law points involved in all the six (6) complaints are the same and all the complaints have been filed against the same parties on account of loss of one academic year of complainants.

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged by the complainants are that OP No.1 who is running its institute in the name and style of M/s Institute of Vertex Technology, Radaur and vide advertisement got published in various newspaper that their institute is having 03-Automobiles Engineering Trade duly approved/recognized by the OP No.2 i.e. from DTE Haryana and AICTE, New Delhi and the interested students can apply and take admission in the said Trade. Accordingly, all the complainants along with other students got the admission in the institute of the OP No.1 for the Session 2012-13 to get diploma in Automobiles Engineer. The admission fee and other charges were to be paid by the Government of Haryana to the OP No.1 in cases of Schedule Caste Category students. The Roll numbers were issued to the complainants and when the complainants approached to appear in the exam for the said session, the OP No.1 refused to allow the complainants to sit in the examination by stating that OP No.1 Institute is not having the said trade of Automobile Engineer and also stated that a dispute between the OP No.1 institute and Central as well as State Board is going on and asked some time from the complainants and assured that the complainants certainly be allowed to appear in exam of the said trade very shortly. Since then, the OP No.1 has prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other. Due to the above acts of the OP No.1, a valuable academic year of complainants have been wasted, which constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. A Legal Notice dated 30.11.2013 was also served but OPs have not done the needful rather sent a vague reply dated 12.12.2013. Lastly prayed for acceptance of the complainant.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainants are stopped from their own act and conduct; complaint is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties; OP No.2 DTE Haryana and AICTE, New Delhi are two different bodies but the complainant has not impleaded them properly; complainant has concealed the true and material facts and on merits it has been submitted that institute of OP No.1 has obtained approval from AICTE New Delhi and the courses were approved. After obtaining the approval from the AICTE, the OP No.1 institute had applied to DTE Haryana for the approval of course for Automobile Engineer and in this process; the admissions were started for Academic Year 2012-13. Extension of approval for 2013-14 was also given by the AICTE and similarly HSBTE has also granted provisional affiliation for the academic session 2012-13 vide letter No. 286 dated 14^th May, 2014 and similarly for the session 2013-14 extension was also granted vide letter No.521 dated 15^th May, 2013. It has been further submitted that complainants belonging to Scheduled Caste has not deposited any fee as their fee was exempted. It has been further mentioned that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also given direction to the Haryana Board to grant affiliation for the Diploma Courses (Second Shift) and additional subject to the respective institute within a period of one week i.e. passing of judgment and order dated 19.12.2012 and similarly ordered that those students shall be deemed to be admitted regularly only after getting the affiliation which, we have directed to grant within a one week. On the admission, the students will have to make up the lost period of course, but the complainant did not come forwarded. The institute has paid the affiliation fee to the HSBTE as well as AICTE. Rest contents of the complainants were denied being wrong and lastly prayed for dismissal of complainant.

4.                     OP No .2 i.e. AICTE filed its written statement and submitted that the present complaints have been filed by the complainants for not allowing them to sit in the exam of diploma in Automobiles Engineer by OP No.1 on the ground that the OP No.1 institute was not having the said trade i.e. Automobiles Engineer. However, no relief has been claimed by the complainants against the OP No.2 in the present complaints.  It has been further stated that the Op No.1 institute was not having approval for the said trade from the Op No.2 i.e.  DTE Haryana but Op No.1 is approved institute to run the present trade i.e. Automobile Engineering and the same is approved from the OP No.2 i.e. AICTE only. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint against the OP No.2. AICTE.

5.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of complainants as Annexure CW/A and some relevant documents such as photocopy of permission-cum-admission form as Annexure C1, Photo copy of complainant made to the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure C2, photocopy of newspaper cutting as Annexure C-3 photocopy of Legal Notice as C-4 and reply of legal notice as Annexure C-5 and closed evidence on behalf of complainants.

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 made a statement that he does not want to adduce any evidence and closed his evidence. OP No.2 AICTE failed to adduce any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order dated 11.02. 2016.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                      It is not dispute that complainants got the admissions in the institute of OP No.1 for the session 2012-13 for getting the diploma in Automobile Engineer as it is duly evident from the permission-cum-admission form Annexure C-1 as well as admission of the OP no.1 in their written statement. It is not disputed that the admission fee and other charges were to be paid by the Government to the OP No.1 in the case of students belonging to Schedule Caste quota.  Learned counsel for the complainants argued at length that when the complainants approached to appear in the examination for the said session, the OP No.1 refused to allow the complainants to sit in the exam by stating that institute of OP No.1 was not having the said trade of Automobile Engineer and also stated that a dispute between the OP No.1 and central as well as State Board is going on. Due to this due wrong full act of the OP No.1, one valuable Academic year of the complainants had been wasted which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair Trade restrictive practices on the part of OP No.1.  So, the complainants are entitled to get the compensation and prayed for the acceptance of the complainant.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 argued at length that after obtaining the approval from AICTE New Delhi, the OP No.1 institute  had applied to the DTE Haryana for approval of the course for Automobile Engineer and in this process, the admission were started for the academic year 2012-13. Learned counsel for OP No.1 further argued that AICTE has also given extension of approval for the year 2013-14 and HSBTE has also grant provisional affiliation for the Academic Session 2012-13 vide letter No.286 dated 14^th May, 2014 and for the year 2013-14 the approval was also granted vide letter No.521 dated 15^th May 2013. Learned counsel for OP No.1 further argued that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also given direction to the Board to grant affiliation for the diploma course (second shift) and additional subject to the respective institution within a period of one week and similarly ordered that those students shall be deemed to be admitted regularly only after getting the affiliation which we have directed to grant within one week. On the admission of the students they will have to make up lost period of the course but the complainant did not come forward. Lastly, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against the OP No.1. Learned counsel for OPs no.1  also referred case law titled as “Ms. Rama Sinha and others Vs. Ms. Jyotika Gupta, IV (2003) CPJ 500” wherein it  has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) –Educational Services-Refund of admission fee claimed on ground that college not recognized by University-Complaint allowed by Forum-Hence appeal-Fee once deposited not to be refunded-complainant deposited the fee after satisfying herself, cannot turn round and ask for refund-Order allowing complaint and raising presumption about OP-College not being affiliated with university not justified-Complainant bound by terms and conditions of prospectus – No deficiency in service proved-Order of Forum set aside. 

10.                   Learned counsel for OP No.2-AICTE argued that in the present complaint, the complainants have made two different departments i.e. DTE Haryana and AICTE as OP No.2. It is further argued that OP No.1 is approved institute from the OP No.2-AICTE only to run the present trade i.e. Automobiles Engineering and lastly prayer for dismissal of the complainant qua the OP No.2 i.e. AICTE.

11.                   After hearing the parties, we are of the considered view that, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs no.1 institute as counsel for the OP No.1 has totally failed to convince this Forum that Institute of OP No.1 i.e.  Institute of Vertex Technology was having any approval from the DTE Haryana for the Session 2012-13 of the courses for Automobile Engineer. Learned counsel for OP No.1 has mentioned in the Para No.7 of its reply that AICTE has given approval for the session 2012-13 and 2013-2014 and similarly HSBTE has also granted provisional affiliation for the academic session 2012-13 vide letter No.286 dated 14^th May 2014 and letter No.521 dated 15^th May, 2013 but no such letter has been placed on file in support of their version. So, in the absence of cogent evidence, this Forum is unable to hold that the OP No.1 was having any valid approval for the academic year 2012-13. We have carefully and minutely gone through the contents of the written statement filed by the OP No.1 but there is not a single iota of word that op no. 1 was having approval from the DTE Haryana for that period and further complainants have not  lost one academic year due to their fault or negligence.  If there was any dispute between the DTE Haryana and OP No.1, then the complainants could not be allowed to suffer due to the fault of OP No.1. On the other hand, case of the complainants is duly proved from their un-rebutted evidence and the complaints made to the Deputy Commissioner Yamuna Nagar, Annexure C-2 and News published in the Newspaper Annexure C-3, whereas no cogent evidence by way of affidavit or otherwise has been placed on file by the OP No.1 in support of their version. No doubt OP No.1 institution was having approval with the AICTE New Delhi but in the absence of any approval from DTE Haryana, granting admission to the students including complainants certainly constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The arguments of learned counsel for OPs that nothing has been charged from the complainants who belong to Schedule caste category  is also not tenable because it is not the case of OP No.1 that their institute had not claimed/received  any amount in respect of candidates belonging to Schedule Caste from the Haryana Government. The Law cited by the counsel for the op no.1 is not disputed but not helpful in the present case. The law cited above by way of counsel for OP No.1 is not disputed but not helpful in the present case. It is not a case of refund of fee rather is for loss one academic year of the complainants, due to fault of the OP No.1 Institute as the OP No.1 institute not only granted admission in the Trade of Automobile Engineer without approval from the DTE but also retained the students/complainants in dark whole of the year till exams.

12.                   Although the complainants have not filed any cogent evidence that they have suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.98,000/-  as claimed by the complainants in the complaints but at the same time it cannot ignored that loss of one Academic Year in the life of the students have much value which cannot be compensated in the terms of money but by way of granting some reasonable compensation they can be compensated, So they are entitled to get some relief.

13.                   Resultantly, In the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaints of the complainants and direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.40,000/- to each of the above noted complainants on account of loss of one academic year and also to refund the entire admission fee deposited for the full academic years by the students of General Category noted above  and also to pay Rs. 5000/- for litigation expenses to each complainant. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainants shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 07.10.2016.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                                DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER