In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No.393/2009. 1) Madhumita Bhattacharya, 12/2, SOuth Avenue Mordern Park, Kolkata-700075. ---------- Complainant ---Versus--- 1) International College of Financial Planning, Regd. Office at 5TH Floor, Bajaj House, 97, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 and Regional Office at 5th Floor, 21A, Shakespeare Court, Shakespeare Sarani, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17. 2) IASE University, 9, Sector 10, Opposite dda sports complex, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075. ---------- Opposite Parties Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President. Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member. Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member Order No. 40 Dated 13-12-2013. The case of the complainant in short is that o.p. no.1 operates its study centre for conducting course in Post Graduate Diploma in Financial Planning (hereinafter referred to as PGDFP) under distance mode and the said course has been authorized by o.p. no.2 under authorization code being IASE-U / D / 127 from the study centre of o.p. no.1 (authorization letter along with acknowledgement is marked as annex-A).The complainant with the above fact and few more article published by o.p. no.1 in newspaper as well as its official website went to o.p. no.1 for seeking admission and few more clarification regarding the UGC recognition of the said course ( UGC recognition letter marked as annex-B). With the above information provided by o.p. no.1 complainant took admission P.G.D.F.P. under the distance mode authorized by o.p. no.2 as the regular full time programme taught in the campus of o.p. no.1 on making the payment of Rs.1,80,000/- only as the total course fee for the year 2008-09 (annex-C). At the time of admission o.p. no.1 stated that above course was recognized by UGC as per the document of IASE University (annex-D). O.p. no.1 assured the complainant 100% placement guarantee on completing the said course which was displayed in the placement policy given by them (annex-E). O.p. no.1 also claimed that the class rooms are equipped with WI-FI enabled services which makes a brighter career of the complainant (annex-F). The complainant was also assured that he will be taken for live market visit and various live projects (annex-G). During the time of admission the complainant was further made to understand that the students would get the multiple certificates without any further payment of course fee and also made to reunderstand by publishing in the official website by imprinting the name of various students who had availed of such facilities (annex-H). The official website of o.p. no.1 also gave the picture of café and multiple clubs availed of under the campus of o.p. no.1, but no such facilities had been provided by them. After the completion of graduation course from Calcutta University the complainant had joined this course conducted by o.p. no.1 and the complainant does not belong to the high class society who can take chances in life by wasting money as well as time. As per assurance given by o.p. no.1 the complainant expected that mark sheet would be surely issued by o.p. no.2, but from the copy of the mark sheet of semester 1 and 2 it was known to the complainant that the mark sheet was issued by o.p. no.1. And moreover, the mark sheet issued by o.p. no.1 was hand written mark sheet. After completion of the said course conducted by o.p. no.1 no certificate has been provided after repeated reminder and regular visit to the campus of o.p. no.1. The complainant has not been provided placement which was claimed by o.p. no.1 at the time of admission. The mark sheet was not sufficient to get placement by the complainant himself as no degree has been provided yet. No clarification has been given by o.p. no.1 about the relation of o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2. Due to the act of o.p. no.1 the complainant has suffered irreparable loss and harassment and prays for refund of course fees from o.p. no.1, issuing diploma certificate by o.p. no.2 and compensation from o.p. no.1 along with litigation cost. Both the o.ps. appeared before the Forum and filed separate written versions. In their w/v o.p. no.1 denied all material allegations interalia stated that o.p. no.1 is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its corporate office at New Delhi and they are engaged in the business of imparting corporate training and other job oriented courses or programme in the field of financial services like financial planning, analysis, stock trading, insurance and retirement planning etc. O.p. no.1 is also an authorized education provider of Financial Planning Standards Board India (FPSB). The said course was first launched in 2004 in Delhi and subsequently in other cities like Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai. O.p. no.1 offers job ready course and the course curriculum is designed to bring out the best of what is most require for industry starting jobs. They provide assistance to its students only to the extent of getting internship assignment and placement opportunity in prospective company. They have never made any false commitment or statement and never declared that its PGDFP course is duly affiliated or recognized with any university or approved by UGC. As per their terms and condition “Once the fee has been paid towards seeking admission to the course / programme the same shall not be refunded under any circumstances”. If any student wants to cancel their enrolment after 15 days the college shall be under no obligation to refund the fee paid towards the course / programme. No refund will be given to the student after commencement of class. It is relevant to mention that the complainant subsequently successfully completed PGDFP course by clearing both the semester. Though o.p. no.1 arranged placement interviews for the complainant he was unable to clear the said interview due to his own personal incapability. Despite of availing of timely efficient services from o.p. no.1 on 14.8.09 a group of certain students of 2008-09 batch suddenly entered into Kolkata campus of o.p. no.1 at 3-00 p.m. and for that activity all the staff members of o.p. no.1 were confined upto 8-00 p.m. Therefore, o.p. no.1 filed an application u/s 144 Cr.P.C. To clear ambiguity and confusion without any delay o.p. no.1 issued a public notice dt.25.8.09 in leading news papers declaring to public that o.p. no.1 is an autonomous institution and is not affiliated to any university / govt. body. In the w/v, o.p. no.1 also stated that they had previously signed a MOU with o.p. no.2 in 2008. O.p. no.2 provisionally accepted their application subject to fulfillment of all university norms and parameters and the said arrangement was not materialized. Therefore, the case filed by the complainant is vague, baseless and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed along with cost. In their w/v, o.p. no.2 also denied all materials allegations interalia stated that the instant case is not maintainable against them. The complainant has not made out any case as against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.2 is a deemed university and it is recognized by UGC. O.p. no.2 conducts courses and examinations in professional subjects and disciplines and awards diplomas and qualifications to successful candidates and they are established u/s 3 of UGC Act, 1956. Apart from, running its own campus programme it has its Directorate of Distance Education for conducting its Distance Education Programme leading to award of degrees, diplomas and certificates through its authorized study centres. O.p. no.1 approached o.p. no.2 for authorization to conduct a study centre for PGDFP. Pursuant thereto and believing in the representation made by o.p. no.1 on 2.1.08 o.p. no.2 entered into an MOU with o.p. no.1 (annexed as “A” with their w/v). By letter dt.1.4.08 o.p. no.2 partly granted a provisional authorization to o.p. no.1 and the said authorization was valid till March 2009 (annexed as “D” with their w/v). Thereafter it came to the knowledge of o.p. no.2 that o.p. no.1 was offering diploma courses and financial planning by itself without any endorsement and/or participation of o.p. no.2 and was charging enormous fees with false and fabricated promises and have been conducting classes and issuing mark sheet to students, while purporting to be acted under the authorization of o.p. no.2. O.p. no.2 was not involved in framing of the syllabi and preparation of course material, setting of question papers, conduct of examinations and issuance of mark sheet for the said courses. So o.p. no.2 is not responsible in any manner for wholly arbitrary, unauthorized and illegal acts of o.p. no.1. In this circumstances by their letter dt.23.12.09 o.p. no.2 directed o.p. no.1 to submit its explanation, if any, as to why the appropriate action would not be taken against o.p. no.1 (annex-C with their w/v). By a further letter dt.24.12.09 o.p. no.2 corrected certain typographical errors which has crept in the letter dt.23.12.09 (annex-D with their w/v). O.p. no.1 sent their letter dt.23.12.09 to o.p. no.2 where they stated that o.p. no.1 had never proceeded on the basis of the letter dt.1.4.08 on the purported basis that there was apprehension and/or confusion on the validity of the diplomas and degrees granted by a deemed university in affiliation with an educational institution under the distance mode. O.p. no.1 further admitted that they had not sponsored and/or enrolled any of its students with o.p. no.2 for PGDFP. It is therefore, the complainant’s grievance, if any, are and can be only as against o.p. no.1 as o.p. no.2 has no jural relationship with the complainant. All allegation made by the complainant are against o.p. no.1. Therefore, o.p. no.2 has prayed to dismiss the instant case against them with cost. Decision with reasons: It is admitted fact that complainant took admission for PGDFP to the institution of o.p. no.1 after making the payment of Rs.1,80,000/-. We have gone through the copies of advertisements published by o.p. no.1 and letter of acknowledgement issued by o.p. no.1 admitting the facts of UGC recognition. From the advertisements complainant came to know that “As a Financial Planner you would be 5 times better than any top B-School MBA”. This PGDFP course is more attractive than MBA course – it was shown by a table of comparison in the advertisement. The complainant was in search of brighter career prospects, believing the facts incorporated in the advertisement of o.p. no.1 to be true got admitted to the institution of o.p. no.1. The complainant paid Rs.1,80,000/- only on the assurance given by o.p. no.1 that their institution is UGC recognized. Most of the commitments were not fulfilled by o.p. no.1 during the continuation of the course. The most frustrating situation arose when the students received hand written mark sheets. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. We have gone through the MOU between o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.1 annexed with w/v of o.p. no.2 whereas o.p. no.2 is the first party and o.p. no.1 is the second party. The agreement was signed on 31.1.08 at Sardarshahr, Dist. Churu, Rajasthan. It is clearly written that course has to be conducted according to rule and regulation. In the second page of MOU it is clearly written that ‘The first and the second party mutually agreed and acknowledged the principle that education is not a commercial activity but a means to perpetually uplift the quality of living of an individual and thus to serve the society. This MOU is a step towards it’. As per Rights and Responsibility of both the parties, second party shall fulfill ten conditions. As per those conditions o.p. no.1 should pay fees to o.p. no.2 as per university norms for introduction of new courses and/or additional streams. From the Guidelines and Norms we have come to know that the application form(s) towards fresh admission and re-registration shall be printed by o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 will follow the norms and instructions as issued by the university from time to time in printing of their prospectus (para 38 of Guidelines and Norms – annex-1 with MOU). But here the instructions were not followed as per the university terms and conditions. In annex-2 along with MOU the particulars of fees payable to o.p. no.2 by o.p. no.1 were mentioned. It is clearly mentioned that the course fee for diploma (PGDFP) student is Rs.12,000/- and it is also written that 50% of the course fee shall be remitted to o.p. no.1 towards expenditure and service rendered. O.P. no.2 granted provisional authorization to O.P. no.1 to conduct course PGDFP under distance mode. The complainant was relied upon the letter dt.1.4.08 issued by o.p. no.2 which was shown by o.p. no.1. The complainant was admitted to o.p. no.1 and all course materials were supplied by o.p. no.1. No complaint was made by the complainant against o.p. no.2 before filing this case. As per MOU the authorization was valid upto March 2009 subject to fulfillment of norms. But MOU was not acted upon at all. From letter dt. 23.12.09 issued by o.p. no.2 it was clearly mentioned that it had come to their knowledge that o.p. no.1 was offering PGDFP courses without participation of o.p. no.2. O.p. no.2 has alleged that o.p. no.1 is charging enormous fees with false and fabricated promises although o.p. no.1 had not submitted the application form and the prescribed fees to the university for enrolling the concerned students with o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 had been conducting classes as their own and issuing mark sheets to students which is against all norms and parameters of o.p. no.2 as per MOU and in contravention of the terms of authorization granted to o.p. no.1. The semester of PG diploma course as prescribed by o.p. no.2 is Rs.9000/- (total semester fees), whereas o.p. no.1 illegally and arbitrarily charged Rs.1,80,000/- or above from each student. No enrollment was done by o.p. no.2. The terms of MOU were totally violated. The provisional approval granted by o.p. no.2 to o.p. no.1 was treated as null and void as per their letter dt.23.12.09. From letter 30.12.09 issued by o.p. no.1 to o.p. no.2 it is clearly stated that “Even after having been granted the Provisional Authorization, our institution did not sponsor and/or enroll any of the students with your university for the PGDFP under the distance mode”. Though the terms and conditions laid down in MOU were not acted upon, there was no development in connection with the authorization given by o.p. no.2 to o.p. no.1. Subsequently o.p. no.2 cancelled the provisional authorization. The students deposited huge fees for seeking a bright career. Their expectations were deeply frustrated. O.p. no.1 sought authorization from o.p. no.2. Accordingly, o.p. no.2 get the provisional authorization by their letter dt.1.4.08. By showing the provisional authorization o.p. no.1 allured the students for bright career, but o.p. no.1 did not care to follow the norms and conditions as per MOU between o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.1. So it is clearly a breach of contract and for this reason students are suffering a lot. O.p. no.1 claimed that the huge fees were taken for development of their infrastructure, but not such head was mentioned in the fee receipt. The complainant had spent huge amount for admission and was given all sorts of assurances from o.p. no.1. No one would take admission for a 12 months course at the cost of Rs.1,80,000/- at any institution which is not at all UGC recognized. Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined in C.P. Act, 1986. As per this Act u/s 2(1)(g) “deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner or performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. So there was clear deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1 and the complainant is entitled to claim relief. O.p. no.2 is not responsible for any kind of deficiency in service towards the complainant. So the instant case needs be dismissed against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 is carrying unfair trade practice as per Section 2(1)(r) of C.P. Act. It reveals from the record that o.p. no.1 has been carrying on their institute in an unfair manner and this act on the part of o.p. no.1 is simply a matter of carrying on unfair trade practice. The act on the part of o.p. no.1 is something like a growth of malignance of the society and this sort of act has taken away the bright careers of huge youths of promising prospect of our society and such type of act should not be allowed to be continued for the sake of a nation as a whole and such type of practice is highly condemnable and should be nipped in the bud and a stern action is highly warranted to put an end of it. In result the case of the complainant succeeds. Hence, ordered, That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against o.p. no.1 with cost and dismissed against o.p. no.2 without cost. O.p. no.1 is directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant and is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment sustained by the complainant and is also directed to pay the litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only. O.p. no.1 is further directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only towards punitive damage out of which Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only is payable to the complainant and balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) is payable to the State Consumer Welfare Fund, Govt. of West Bengal, Consumer Affairs Deptt. for carrying on unfair trade practice. O.p. no.1 is directed to comply the aforesaid order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum till full realization of the awarded amount. |
