BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.748/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 24^th August 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                          B.E., LLB., PGDCLP    - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C,

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party, alleging unfair trade practice and seeking a relief of a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- inclusive of the expenses incurred for the studies and admission fee etc., with compensation for the mental agony, hardship caused with cost of litigation and such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant got admitted to opposite party university during the academic year 2011-12 and successfully completed her education and obtained graduation in B.A. (E.P.S) course, during 2013-14.  Subsequently, admitted to Sharada Vilas Law College at Mysore for 3 years L.L.B., course and paid the requisite fees.  The admission was cancelled, on the grounds of non-recognition of the B.A. Degree course obtained from the opposite party university, by the U.G.C. 
3.     Aggrieved by the same, complainant filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
4.    The opposite party in its version, submits that the complaint is not maintainable, as there is no relationship of consumer with the opposite party.  It has been constituted under ‘The Karnataka State Open University Act 1992”, with an objective of imparting and promoting education for the benefit of common people at large.
5.     The opposite party admitted that, the complainant studied in its university between 2011-12 to 2013-14.  Cancellation of admission on the ground of unrecognition of the Degree Course is not proper.  Therefore, submits, they are not liable to pay compensation and prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6.     To establish the facts, the parties lead evidence by filing affidavit and relied on several documents.  Written arguments filed and heard the oral submissions of the respective counsels.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
7.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the opposite party establishes the unfair trade practice by the opposite party, in conducting courses not recognised by UGC and thereby she is entitled for the relief sought?
3. What order?

8.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.    Point No.1:- The complainant joined the opposite party university to pursue her studies in B.A. degree course between 2011-12 to 2013-14.  The prescribed fee were paid for the course and obtained the relevant documents on completion of the graduation.
10. The courses offered by the opposite party university were recognised by the UGC until the end of academic year 2012-13 only.  Still the opposite party represented and mislead the complainant that, courses conducted by it were recognised by UGC.
11. Further, the opposite party strongly contended that, the complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act and its functions does not fall under the purview of the definition “Service” as under section 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act.  As such, contended that, the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that, the complainant was a “Consumer” under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act and the opposite party university committed “unfair trade practice” under section 2(1)(r ) of the C.P.Act.  As such, the complaint is maintainable.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
13. Point No.2:- The complainant took admission to B.A. Degree course during the academic year 2011-12 in the opposite party university.  At the time of her admission, it was informed that, the course was recognised by the UGC.  The complainant completed her B.A. degree course during 2013-14 and obtained the provisional degree certificate and transfer certificate on payment of prescribed fee.
14. Later the complainant joined L.LB Degree course at Sharadavilas Law College, Mysuru and deposited the prescribed fee towards admission.  The Principal of the College, informed that, the B.A. Degree obtained from the opposite party university was not recognised by the UGC, as such, the admission has been cancelled.
15. On seeking clarification, the opposite party clarified that, the UGC recognised the course until the academic year 2012-13 and the renewal of the same is in progress.  Having lost the valuable time and the future educational prospects and job opportunities, complainant filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
16. The opposite party contended that, it was constituted under ‘The Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992” with an objective of imparting and promoting higher education to the advantage of the common people at large by distance education system.
17. It admitted that, the complainant joined for B.A. degree course in the academic year 2011-12 and completed her graduation in the year 2013-14.
18. It further contended that, the opposite party university was recognised by the Distance Education Council (DEC) New Delhi, constituted by MHRD and UGC was regulating the distance education in the nation.  Later on, the Distance Education Counsil (DEC)was repealed in the year 2013 and its powers are vested with the UGC.  The course in which the complainant graduated, was recognised by the DEC and the UGC.
19. As such, opposite party contended that, cancellation of admission of the complainant, for LLB course, on the ground of unrecognition of the degree course, by the Sharadavilas Law College, was not proper and are liable to pay compensation to the complainant, for cancellation of admission, mental agony, hardship caused.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
20. Admittedly, the complainant joined the opposite party university to pursue her education in B.A. degree course during the academic year 2011-12 and completed her graduation during the year 2013-14.  All the relevant documents pertaining to her studies were received on payment of prescribed fees.
21. Subsequently, to continue her studies in 3 years L.L.B. Degree course, joined the Sharadavilas Law College at Mysuru and paid the requisite fees and started attending the classes.  All the relevant documents pertaining to her degree course were submitted as demanded.  The Karnataka State Law University, on verification of the submitted documents, found that, the degree course conducted by the opposite party university was not recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC).  As such, the Karnataka State Law University, not approved the admission of the complainant to the 3years – LLB degree course and its decision was communicated to the Principal, Sharadavilas Law College, Mysuru vide its letter dated 31.10.2015.  Thereby the college cancelled the admission of complainant to the LLB Course.
22. Further, on seeking clarification from the opposite party university, it was informed vide its letter dated 17.07.2015 that, the Distance Education Council had granted recognition to the opposite party university upto 2013 only and further recognition is sought by the opposite party and the same is awaited from the University Grants Commission.  This confirmed the unrecognition to the courses of opposite party and the same is still awaited.
23. Therefore, the intention of the complainant to pursue her education in LLB Degree Course was ruined and she lost her valuable time and money in the process of getting graduation from an unrecognised University (i.e. opposite party) which assured the courses conducted by it were recognised.  Considering the loss of time, hardship and inconvenience, we opine that, the opposite party has committed unfair practice towards the complainant by means of false assurances.  Though the loss of time cannot be quantified in terms of money, a suitable compensation is required to be awarded in favour of the complainant to substantiate the loss suffered.  The opposite party is liable to pay the compensation with damages to the complainant.  Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
24.  Point No.2:- In view of the observations made in point No.1, we proceed to pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant, within 60 days of this order.  In default to comply, the opposite party is liable to pay penalty of Rs.500/- per day to the complainant, until payment made.
3. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards damages for the mental agony, hardship caused and Rs.2,000/-towards cost of the litigation to the complainant, within 60 days of this order.  Failing to pay the said amount, opposite party shall pay interest at 10% p.a. on the said total sum of Rs.7,000/- until payment made.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 24^th August 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

                               (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

                                        MEMBER