DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.31/2013

Sh. Lalit K Tiwari

S/o Sh. Kaushalendra Tiwari

R/o H.No. B-7/65, First Floor,

Safdarjung Enclave

New Delhi-110029                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

1.      The Admission Office

          KCC Institute of Technology & Management

          K-79, Second Floor, South Extension Part-1,

          New Delhi-110049

2.      The Chairman & Vice Chairman

          KCC Institute of Technology & Management

          Plot No.2B-2C, Knowledge Park-III

          Greater Noida-201306

3.      The Registrar & Director      

          Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology

          Faizabad (U.P.)                                         ….Opposite Parties

                                                          Date of Institution        : 18.01.13     Date of Order                 :    31.08.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

          According to the Complainant, OP No.1 is an admission office of OP No.2 for enrolling students to technical courses; in the year 2004 OP No.2 had a collaboration agreement with OP No.3 for enrolling students, engaging teachers, running regular classes for enrolled students and conducting exams on behalf of the OP No.3 for imparting 2 years M. Tech degree course;  OP No.3 is an established university who has been offering various technical degree courses through their office of the Directorate of Distance Education Programme.  On 22.08.04 the complainant took admission through OP No.1 in the first semester of M Tech Computer Science & Engineering and the student identity card No.15328, Enrollment DIT0020101304 of OP No.3 was issued in his name for two years M Tech Degree course.  In the month of January 2005, the OP No.1 charged Rs.850/- as exam and mark sheet fee and conducted first semester exam including the complainant at Gagan Bharti Public School, Om Vihar, Delhi.  Complainant was verbally intimated to have qualified first semester exams and was told that his mark sheet was awaited from OP No.3. As the complainant had qualified first semester, the OP No.1 asked him to pay fee to re-register for the second semester as the classes were to begin from June, 2005.  He paid fee for the second semester. It is stated that in the month of June-July, 2005 when he went to the office of OP No.1 the premises was found locked. The people from neighbourhood offices told him that the OPs have shut their operations from here and the premises were never opened. According to the Complainant, he never   received any call or email or letter from the OPs for informing him about the change of address of study centre. The complainant was feeling being cheated of not only time and money but also his employment career but he did not lose hope and kept on searching the whereabouts of OP No.1 & 2  in every educational hubs and upcoming institutional areas and ultimately he found their premises on his way to Greater Noida on the express-way. After that he collected information from internet from their website, name/logo of the institute, reopening of the admission at the same floor in South Extensions and few members of the managing committee have confirmed that this is the same party who had earlier cheated him and also found Ex-NDUAT member also in the list.  On 11.07.12 & 07.08.2012 he served self notices to the Chairman/Vice-Chairman of OP No.1 & 2 and also to the Registrar/Director of OP No.3  but no reply was received from the OPs.  The complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to refund Rs.27050/- alongwith 18% interest per annum and also to pay Rs.4,50,000/- as damages to his career, litigation cost and mental agony etc.

OP No.1 & 2 have been proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.04.2013 passed by our predecessors.

OP No.3 in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by time as the same has been filed after 7 years; that the present complaint is not maintainable against OP No.3 as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.3; that the OP No.3 is a University established under the University Act imparting education to pupils. Imparting education to pupils by the University does not fall within the ambit and scope of the Consumer Protection Act; that  the entire grievances of the complainant appear to be against OP No.1 & 2; that the Annexure II(A) and Annexure III(B) which are identity Card and Admit  Card filed alongwith the complaint are admitted; that the rules printed in the prospectus provide that no refund of fee shall be made on withdrawal/ cancellation of admission under any circumstances; that the records of OP No.3 show that the complainant had taken   admission in M Tech course in Computer Science and Engineering through collaborators OP No.1 & 2; that OP No.3 had records of complainant taking admission to first semester of M Tech course and thereafter there is no record with OP No.3 for admission of the complainant in second semester; that the Distance Education program was closed under the orders of the  Chancellor/Governor of UP dated 03/06/05  which were duly  published in various Newspapers dated 20.07.05; that the OP No.1 & No.2  (the Collaborators and Study Centre) were also communicated in this regard; that  the OP No.1 could not have taken the admission after passing of order dated 03.06.05 and the OP No.3  University is not liable for any amount taken by OP No.1 & 2; that the university is prepared to refund the fee paid to the university for the semester which comes to Rs.3125/- and as and when the complainant submits proof of payment of the said fee to the University the University  shall pay the same to the complainant; that  the fee payable by each student per semester had to be paid by the student by way of  three bank drafts i.e. of 25 % in favour of University, 35% in favour of Collaborator and 40% in favour of the study Center.   Denying any deficiency in service, OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed a written rejoinder/statement/affidavit. It is stated that the complainant was not given the prospectus. It is further stated that “ All the payments were taken in Cheques and cash along with the filled application form. In such case how a complainant know about what are fee submission criterion and norms  set by the University. No such mention was there in the application form that only DDs are accepted and some amount needs to be deposited to the University. Therefore, the complainant should not be held responsible of having violated any university norms in depositing fees.  And  showing Rule of University and Role of  Colloborator (OP-1&2) after the  cheating has been committed and career opportunities have been deprived off, will do no value add and are meaningless for the complainant at this stage.” It is also stated as under:-

“… the university is prepared to refund the fee paid to the university for the semester which comes to Rs.3125/- that too when the complainant submits proof of payment to the university. As already stated that non prospectus was given and there was no such mention of part payment directly to the university in the application form. Therefore complainant has made all the payments to the office of OP-1&2, and copy of such payment receipts are already with the university, as that were enclosed with the original complaint.”

On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Srivastva, Assistant Accountant has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP No.3.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the OP No.3.

We have head the arguments on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.

Firstly, we shall deal with the issue whether the complaint is time barred. The case of the complainant is that it was in the month of June-July, 2005 when he came to know that the premises of the OP No.1 was locked and  he was informed by the neighbourhood offices that the OPs have shut their operation. It appear that according to him it was in the year 2012 when he came to know that OP No.1 & 2 had their premises at Greater Noida Expressway  and that the admission  office was running from the same address i.e. the address given in the complaint. It is the same address of OP No.1 which has been mentioned in the document filed by the complainant i.e. Annexure-II (B). These are the photocopies of receipt No. 821 dated 22.08.04, receipt No.1374 dated 18.12.04 and receipt No. 217 dated 24.03.15 issued by the OP No.1 from the same address. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe that OP No.1 closed the admission office from South Extension or OP No.2 from Greater Noida in June - July, 2005.  Therefore, there is every reason to believe that the OP No.1 & 2 were operating from the same addresses. Therefore, we do not find any sufficient cause for the complainant for not filing the complaint within the stipulated period of 2 years from the date accrual of the cause of action. Hence, we hold that the complaint is time barred.

Secondly, according to the complainant the prayer of the complainant is issue directions to the OPs to refund Rs.27,050/- towards the fee amount alongwith interest.  Copies of the receipts are Annexure-II (B) and Annexure-III (A). The same are for an amount of Rs.5000/-, Rs.250/-, Rs.7500/- and Rs.850/-, totalling to Rs.13600/-.  Now as per the documents filed on behalf of the OP No.3  and especially the copy of the agreement executed between OP No.3 and OP No.1 and OP No.2 out of the fee paid by a student University share was to be 25% i.e. Rs.3400. Now the case of the OP No.3 is that the share of OP No.3 comes to Rs.3125/- and the OP No.3 is ready to refund the same as and when the complainant submit proof of payment of the said fee to the University. Thus, the OP No.3 has frankly admitted its liability to the extent of Rs.3125/-.

The complainant has not lead any evidence to show that he has infact deposited Rs.27050/- towards the fee with the OPs.   Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as per the allegations made in the complaint.

In view of the above discussion, we direct the OP No.3 to refund an amount of Rs.3125/- to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP No.3 shall become liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of Rs.3125/- from the date of this order till realization.   Under the facts and circumstances of the case we do not award any compensation to the complainant. The complaint stands deposed off accordingly.

          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 31.08.17.