Ld Advocates for complainant and OP1 are present. Judgement is ready and delivered in open Commission in 7 pages in 4 separate sheet of papers.

BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party No.1 is the Chairman of The Institute of Education & Management (TIEM) for several degrees courses to admit students in different universities and institutions due to his well connections and Op No.2 is the Principal of a University where the Op No.1 has claimed their tie up for MBA (HR) degree course through distance education.

2. The Complainant was in simple mind being convinced out of belief for good intimacy and gesture by the Op No.1, started distance learning education course MBA (HR) from the Chaudhury Charan Singh University, Meerut which was completely unknown by the Complainant but, due to well convinced by the Op No.1 he without any anxiety taken admission after payment of fee and other charges amounting to Rs.65,000.00 in total in four installments which includes 12% extra refundable amount.

3. The Complainant appeared the examination from time to time before the Op No.2 which was conducted at the place of Op No.1, duly passed and completed the MBA (HR) against which Mark Sheets issued by the Op No.1 through either Email or Whatsapp.

4. Subsequently, for the Complainant’s job enquiry purpose some fictitious and suspicious documentation noticed by the Complainant when the Op No.1 delaying for the long time to provide the Original Mark Sheets.

5. Accordingly, the Complainant made an enquiry to the UGC through RTA against which they replied that the Op No.2 University cannot offer any degree through Off Campus Centre. Thereafter, from various sources also the Complainant came to know that the degree is a fake one which is provided by the Ops.

6. Thereafter, the Complainant connected the Op No.1 several times at Tamluk Office with a request for truth and for refunding 12% extra refundable amount but, the Op No.1 misbehaved and arbitrarily acted by driving him out from the office with serious threat.

7. On 29.03.2020 a Legal Notice was issued by the Complainant but, the Ops made no reply.

8. Therefore, the Complainant prefers to move before this Commission for necessary redressal.

9. The cause of action of this case arose on 17.05.2015, 12.08.2014 and 10.02.2018 respectively.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To Refund the Course Fee of Rs.65,000.00 to the Complainant by the Ops.

2. To pay Compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 for loss of two long years of the Complainant as he lost better job opportunity.

3. To pay Compensation of Rs.50,000.00 for serious mental pain and agony.

4. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.15,000.00 to the Complainant by the Ops for conducting the case.

10. Notices were duly served upon the Ops but, Op No.2 preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against it.

11. Under the above circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for ex-parte order against the Op No.2.

12. The Op No.1 has contested the case by filing Written Version and Questioners. While resisting the claim of the Complainant, the Op No.1 stated inter alia that this complaint is false, fabricated and concocted which is falsely filed by the Complainant with a motive to harass the Op No.1. Apart from that the Op No.1 is a law abiding innocent citizen and not the Owner and Manager of The Institute of Educations & Management (TIEM).

13. Under the above circumstances, the Op No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the present case.
14. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

15. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainant along with all papers and other supporting documents.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. In the instant case, the Complainant submitted a list of documents containing the copy of Refund Claim Letter with Postal Receipt, Complaint against the Ops, Written Examination-in-Chief on Affidavit, Reply, Information against RTI by UGC, copy of MBA (HR) Mark Sheets from 1^st to 4^th Semester, Four Money Receipts for Total Rs.65,000.00 and 10 Sheets Colour Printouts from Website www.tiemkolkata.in and Facebook Profile of Op No.1.

5. The Op No.1 also submitted Written Version on Affidavit and Questioners.

6. In Written Version, the Op No.1 being a law abiding innocent person denied to be the Owner and Manager of The Institute of Education & Management (TIEM) by claiming all allegations are false, fabricated and concocted which is liable to be dismissed. But, from the submitted documents, it is carefully observed that the Money Receipt No.165, dated: 12.08.2014 for Rs.15,000.00 issued by The Institute of Education (TIE) with Stamp where the Contact No.7384783625 is same as the Contact Number mentioned in the other Money Receipt No(s).369, 1447 & 1460; dated: 20.08.2015, 16.02.2017 & 19.04.2017 amounting to Rs.10,000.00, Rs.10,000.00 and Rs.30,000.00 respectively as well as advertisement of The Institute of Education & Management (TIEM). It proves that the amount was fraudulently collected for a same degree course by two separate institutions i.e. TIE and TIEM under the same Management Group.

7. Secondly, from the Facebook Profile of Op No.1 i.e. Lalit Mohan Das, it is found that his Contact No.8116669515 is same as the Contact Number mentioned in the advertisement of The Institute of Education & Management (TIEM). It is also found from his Facebook Profile, he is the Owner & Chairman at Self Employment (Business) i.e. TEM Hotel & Hospitality Management College Pvt. Ltd., The Education & Management (TEM) and The Institute of Education & Management (TIEM) respectively.

8. From another Website www.collegedunia.com this Commission has found, the Op No.1 i.e. Lalit Mohan Das is the Chairman of The Institute of Education & Management (TIEM).

1. It is also observed that, the Op No.1 i.e. Lalit Das (DIN:07698172) was the Director of Tiem Hospitality Management Private Ltd. registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and currently associated with two Companies as Director of Tem Hospitality Management Pvt. Ltd. and Tamluk Janakalyan Diagnostic Center Pvt. Ltd. which is evident that the TEM and TIEM are running under the same Group of Management of which Lalit Mohan Das is a common Director.

10. Moreover, from the submitted Information under Right To Information Act, 2005 vide letter Ref.No.F.4-2/2018 (CPP-I/PU), dated:10.02.2018 replied by the University Grant Commission, New Delhi it is categorically mentioned that “Choudhury Charan Singh University is not authorized to open Study Centre / Off-Campus Centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prof. Yash Pal – Vs.– State of Chattisgarh. The UGC has not granted any approval to the University to open Off -Campus / Study Centre.”

11. Therefore, it is very much clear that there are clear evidence of Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Op No.1. Owing to such unfair trade practice committed by Op No.1, the Complainant suffered loss of two long years and also lost better job opportunity. He suffered serious mental pain and agony.

• Now, coming to the matter of reliefs, the Op No.1 can’t get absolved from themselves from mischief of harassment and unfair trade practice. The Op No.1 is solely liable to refund the entire MBA (HR) Course Fee & Other Charges amounting to Rs.65,000.00 along with a Simple Interest @8% per annum in addition to the said amount within 30 Days from the date of this order. The Op No.1 is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 towards Compensation for loss of two long years with mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

13. Accordingly, both the points are decided.

• Thus, the complaint case succeeds.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That the CC-07 of 2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Op No.1 and dismissed ex-parte against the Op No.2.

1. Op No.1 is directed to refund the entire MBA (HR) Course Fee & Other Charges amounting to Rs.65,000.00 along with a Simple Interest @8% per annum over the said amount  within 30 Days from the date of this order. The Op No.1 is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

2. The Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to initiate a proceeding u/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

3. Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

4. File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment.