DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.80 of 30.3.2007<br /> Decided on : 12.7.2007 <br /> <br /> Gulbir Kaur Brar D/o Sh. Surinder Singh, R/o H. No. 125/6, Rajguru Nagar, Moga, Tehsil & District Moga. <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. Management Committee of the Adesh Institute of Medical Science & Research, Barnala Road, Bathinda through its Chairman, Dr. H.S. Gill.<br /> 2. Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Barnala Road, Bathinda through its Principal.<br /> 3. The Principal, Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Barnala Road, Bathinda.<br /> 4. The Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar through its Registrar.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. N.K.Jeet, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Gursewak Singh Chugh, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 32,500/- deposited by her as admission fee and hostel fee alongwith interest @ 18% P.A from the date of deposit till realization; pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental tension and undue harassment, besides expenses of litigation.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint itself culminating into its filing may be epitomized as under :-<br /> Complainant is resident of Moga. She is diploma holder in Medical Lab Technology from Government Polytechnic College, Patiala. Opposite party No. 1 is running Medical Educational Institute at Barnala Road, Bathinda. On 5.7.2006, opposite party No.2 invited applications for admission for Professional Paramedical Diploma and Degree Courses in many fields of Medical Sciences including B.Sc. Medical Lab Tech.(Lateral) by way of getting published an advertisement in the newspaper Daily Ajit. Course of B.Sc. Medical Lab Tech. (Lateral) was declared to be approved by opposite party No.4. It was not expressly mentioned in the advertisement that diploma and degree courses offered are under the Distant Learning Program and that opposite party No.2 is only a study centre under this program. In the absence of specific details in respect of courses in the advertisement, she got impression like many other students that the courses offered are regular. She alongwith her father Surinder Singh approached opposite party No.3 and asked for prospectus so that she may get full information about the courses being offered by them. Instead of giving prospectus, simple application form was provided telling that it be considered as prospectus. At that time Miss Rajbir Kaur Brar D/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, resident of Moga and her father were also present to whom the same reply was given by opposite party No.3 concerning the prospectus. She and Rajbir Kaur were asked by opposite party No. 3 to fill up the application form for getting admission. Accordingly, she filled up the application form and got admission in B.Sc. Medical Lab Tech. (Lateral) as a regular student. Admission fee of Rs. 20,500/- in two instalments i.e. first of Rs.10,000/- vide Receipt Book No. 788 Sr. No. 1 dated 15.7.2006 and second of Rs. 10,500/- vide Receipt Book No. 827 Sr. No. 61 dated 2.9.2006 was deposited. Admission fee got deposited by the opposite parties is the same as required to be deposited from the students of regular course of B.Sc. Medical Lab Tech (Lateral). Rs. 12,000/- were deposited by her as hostel fee vide Receipt Book No. 827 Sr. No. 63 dated 2.9.2006. On 4.9.2006 when she reached the Institute for attending the classes as regular student, she was shocked to know that there were no classes for B.Sc. Medical Lab Tech (Lateral) in the Institute. When she and some other students made inquiries, she was told by opposite party No.3 that in this institution B.Sc. Medical Lab Tech (Lateral) is not a regular one. Rather, it is Distant Learning Course as opposite party No.2 is merely a Study Centre of opposite party No.4 under Distant Education Program. This fact was knowingly and intentionally concealed by the opposite parties in the advertisement got published in the newspaper as well as at the time of giving the admission. After coming to know the above facts, she had to withdraw her admission from opposite party No.2 and she has got admission in another Institute namely Baba Ishwar Singh College of Science & Technology, Gagra, District Moga for regular study in B.Sc. Medical Lab Tech (Lateral) by way of paying fresh fee. At the time of withdrawing the admission request was made to opposite party No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.32,500/- paid as admission fee and hostel fee. He had promised to refund it after consultations with opposite party No.1. Thereafter, she alongwith her father and another victim of deceitful advertisement i.e. Rajbir Kaur and her father requested opposite party No.3 to refund the amount, but he paid no heed. She alleges that opposite parties have caused mental agony and harassment to her and her family. <br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint; she has not come with clean hands; complaint is false and frivolous and complainant is not consumer. On merits, they admit that complainant is resident of Moga and she has passed DMLT from Govt. Poytechnic College, Patiala in 2006 and that opposite party No.1 is running medical educational institute at Barnala Road, Bathinda under the name and style of Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research. According to them applications were invited for admission in professional paramedical diploma and degree courses in many fields of medical sciences including B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) by way of publishing an advertisement in the newspaper Daily Ajit dated 5.7.2006. Necessary approval regarding the courses including B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) under Distant Education was accorded by opposite party No.4 vide letter No. PT 4/PO/DE-13022 dated 11.8.2006. Their plea is that complainant had obtained prospectus from the institute against payment containing admission form. She had submitted admission form duly filled in alongwith her undertaking and of her father on 15.7.2006. She is trying to mislead this Forum. She was well aware that regular classes for the course were to be attended by her. Miss Rajbir Kaur was also supplied the prospectus against payment. Admission form was its part and parcel. No separate admission form is given to the aspirant. Complainant had filled up the admission form for B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) course as a regular student. Admission fee of Rs.20,500/- in two instalments i.e. first instalment of Rs. 10,000/- on 15.7.2006 and second of Rs.10,500/- on 2.9.2006, was deposited. First instalment of Rs.10,000/- was got deposited as advance admission fee. Complainant who had come with her father for depositing fee on 2.9.2006 was informed that regular class would commence from 4.9.2006 and that she should attend the class. She attended classes regularly from 4.9.2006 to 12.9.2006 excepting 9.9.2006 & 10.9.2006 being Saturday and Sunday respectively. After 12.9.2006 she did not attend the classes and was marked absent. Names of the students who were not attending the classes and who did not deposit the fee for the 4th semester were struck off from the Attendance Register. A sum of Rs. 12,000/- was deposited by the complainant as hostel fee vide Receipt Book No. 827 Sr. No. 63 dated 2.9.2006. Hostel accommodation was to be made available w.e.f. 4.9.2006. Complainant occupied the room allotted to her in the hostel and she vacated it on 14.9.2006. They deny for want of knowledge that complainant has got admission in another institute in District Moga. Request was made by her father for refund of the fee amounting to Rs.32,500/- including hostel fee vide his application dated 29.9.2006 without assigning any reason for withdrawing/dropping the complainant from the institution. He was informed that as per undertaking given by him and his daughter, amount cannot be refunded. They admit that complainant and Miss Rajbir Kaur Brar had served legal notice upon opposite parties No. 1 & 2 asking them to refund the amount alongwith interest and to pay compensation. They assail the validity of the notice. Remaining averments in the complaint and deficiency in service on their part stand denied.<br /> 4. In support of her allegations in the complaint, Gulbir Kaur complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit (Ex.C.1), affidavits (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3) of Rajbir Kaur and Surinder Singh, photocopy of advertisement (Ex. C.4), photocopies of receipts (Ex.C.5 to Ex.C.7), photocopy of application dated 29.9.2006 (Ex.C.8), photocopy of statement regarding fee (Ex.C.9), photocopy of letter dated 11.8.2006 (Ex.C.10) & prospectus (Ex.C.11).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Dr. V. Mohan, Opposite party No.3, photocopy of letter dated 11.8.2006 (Ex.R.2), photocopy of notice (Ex.R.3), photocopy of Attendance Register from September, 2006 to March, 2007 (Ex.R.4), Prospectus-2006 alongwith application form (Ex.R.5), photocopy of application dated 29.9.2006 (Ex.R.6), photocopy of Admission Form alongwith undertaking (Ex.R.7), photocopy of admission form (Ex.R.8) & photocopy of record regarding hostel rooms (Ex.R.9). <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the parties. <br /> 7. Some facts become undisputed. They are that complainant is holder of diploma in Medial Lab Technology. Opposite party No.2 had invited applications for admission in professional paramedical diploma and degree courses in many fields of medical science including B.Sc. MLT(Lateral). Advertisement was got published in the newspaper Daily Ajit dated 5.7.2006. Photocopy of the advertisement is Ex.C.4. Its relevant portion concerning B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) is reproduced as under :-<br /> “B.Sc. Medical Lab Tech. (Lateral) <br /> (Approved by Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar)<br /> Entry to 3rd year, Eligibility : 10 + 2 +DMLT <br /> Duration : 2 years” <br /> In response to the advertisement, complainant approached opposite party No.3 and filled up the application form. She deposited admission fee to the tune of Rs.20,500/- in two instalments i.e. first instalment of Rs. 10,000/- on 15.7.2006 and second of Rs.10,500/- on 2.9.2006. Copies of the receipts issued by opposite party No.2 are Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.5 respectively. Admission was given to her. A sum of Rs. 12,000/- was deposited by her as hostel fee on 2.9.2006 vide receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.7. Her father moved an application on 29.9.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.8, for refund of the amount of Rs. 32,500/- deposited towards admission fee and hostel fee. Amount has not been refunded.<br /> 8. One of the legal objections taken by the opposite parties in the reply of the complaint is that complainant is not consumer. This objection is not tenable. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 got deposited fee from the complainant for imparting education vide receipts referred to above. Imparting of education for consideration falls within the ambit of “service” as defined under section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Students admitted for being imparted education for consideration can claim themselves to be consumers of the service of education as defined under section 2 (1) (d ) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of M Ravindranath & Anr. Vs. Principal, Mercy College, Palakkad & Anr.-III(2002)CPJ-158 (NC). Similar view has been held in the case of Indira Gandhi National Open University Vs. Indrajeet Devnath and another-2007(1)CLT-168. In the facts and circumstances, complainant is certainly a consumer qua opposite parties No.1 to 3. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that complainant had got admission in opposite party No.2 under the impression that B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) course offered by it was a course of regular studies and that opposite party No.2 is recognized institution of opposite party No.4. Prospectus was not supplied. Only application form was provided to the complainant. He further submitted that on 4.9.2006, complainant had come to know from opposite party No.3 that B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) course is not a regular one. Rather, it is distant learning course and opposite party No.2 is merely a study/learning centre of opposite party No.4 under Distant Education Program. He further argued that opposite party No.2 knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts by getting published the advertisement which was misleading as well as at the time of giving admission to the students. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. <br /> 10. Mr. Chugh learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that complainant was supplied the prospectus containing admission form against payment. Columns of the admission form were filled in by her for B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) course as a regular student. Requisite admission fee and hostel fee were deposited. She attended classes for a few days. After 12.9.2006, she did not attend the classes and vacated the hostel on account of the fact of having got admission in another institute in District Moga. In this situation, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties nor is she entitled to the refund of the admission and hostel fee in view of the undertakings/declarations in the admission form of opposite party No.2 and application form of opposite party No.4, copies of which are Ex.R.7& Ex.R.8 respectively. <br /> 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. As mentioned above, fact regarding publishing of the advertisement in the newspaper Daily Ajit dated 5.7.2006 is not in dispute. Language of the advertisement, copy of which is Ex.C.4, has not been contradicted by the opposite parties wherein B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) course is claimed to have been approved by opposite party No.4. Necessary approval regarding the courses mentioned above including B.Sc. MLT was accorded by opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.2 on 11.8.2006 as is clear from the copies of the letter which are Ex.R.2 and Ex.C.10. On 5.7.2006, when opposite party No.2 issued advertisement for admission and on 15.7.2006 when opposite party No.3 got admission form from the complainant and got admission fee to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- deposited, opposite party No.2 was not approved by opposite party No. 4 even as a learning centre under Distant Education Program for any of the courses for which students were being admitted. Copy of the prospectus is Ex.C.11. A perusal of this document reveals that opposite party No.2 has not been recorded as one of the learning centres of opposite party No.4. No learning centre code has been shown to have been allotted to it by opposite party No.4. Hence, the contents of the advertisement were factually misleading, incorrect and deceptive. Not to speak of this, even through letter dated 11.8.2006, copies of which are Ex.C.10 & Ex.R.2, no approval has been granted by opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.2 even for working as its learning centre for B.Sc. MLT(Lateral) course. Approval accorded is for B.Sc. MLT course and that too, under Distant Education Program and not as regular course. According to the advertisement, copy of which is Ex.C.4, eligibility criteria for B.Sc. MLT and B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) is different. They have different entry qualifications and duration. As per evidence of the opposite parties, approval to conduct B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) through Distant Learning Program has not been granted to opposite party No.2 by opposite party No.4 even upto now, what to talk of B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) regular course.<br /> 12. Complainant got admission with opposite party No.2 under the impression that B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) course offered by it was a course of regular study as in the advertisement it has not been expressly mentioned that it is a course of regular study nor was it implied from its wording that the courses are under Distant Learning Program and that opposite party No.2 is merely a learning/study centre and not an affiliated college of opposite party No.4. In Ex.R.1, Dr. V. Mohan, Principal of opposite party No. 2 has admitted that complainant had filled up the admission form for B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) as a regular student. Facts, circumstances and evidence clearly establish that advertisement got published by opposite party No.2 is certainly misleading. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 got admitted the complainant to B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) as a regular student although they have no authorisation from opposite party No. 4 for B.Sc. MLT (Lateral). <br /> 13. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 assert that complainant was supplied the prospectus against payment and it contained the admission form as its part and parcel. Copy of the prospectus placed on record by opposite parties is Ex.C.11 in which the name of opposite party No.2 does not figure anywhere in the list of approved learning centres of opposite party No.4. The prospectus of opposite party No.2, if any, is not on t he record showing that admission form is its part and parcel. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 allege that prospectus alongwith application form was given against payment. When it is so, opposite party No. 2 must have issued the receipt and obtained signature of the person receiving the prospectus. Evidence of opposite party No.2 on this aspect is lacking. To the contrary, complainant has led evidence in the shape of her affidavit Ex.C.1 and the affidavits of Rajbir Kaur and Surinder Singh which are Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3 respectively that prospectus was not supplied alongwith the application form and that only an application form was given. Moreover, there is reason for not issuing the prospectus as opposite party No.2 was neither affiliated to opposite party No. 4 nor was it its approved learning centre even under Distant Education Program. Evidence does not establish that before 11.8.2006 opposite party No.2 was approved by opposite party No.4 for running learning centre either for regular classes or under Distant Education Program. By way of misrepresentation and on the basis of incorrect information, opposite party No.2 got admission and application forms filled in from the complainant, copies of which are Ex.R.7 and Ex.R.8 respectively on 15.7.2006 when it was not approved by opposite party No.4 in any manner for running the various courses, particularly B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) either regularly or under Distant Education Program. Not to speak of this, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 went to the extent of getting admission form of opposite party No.4, copy of which is Ex.R.8, filled in from the complainant which it could not in the facts and circumstances referred to above. Opposite parties say that complainant had absented herself from the classes. On the other hand, they admit that application dated 29.9.2006 was moved by her father informing opposite party No.3 that he has withdrawn his daughter from the institute and the fee be refunded. Despite this, opposite party No. 3 continued to mark her absent till April, 2007 and after that her name was struck of. In these circumstances, opposite party No.2 has made vain attempt to show that it is study centre of opposite party No.4 for regular course of B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) which infact it is not. <br /> 14. No-doubt, Ex.R.7 which the copy of the admission form, declaration has been given by the complainant on 15.7.2006 that she would not demand any refund after her admission. In the application form of opposite party No.4 got filled in from the complainant, the declarations from the complainant are not like this declaration. In that form, she has declared that in case, she is not able to fulfill the eligibility criteria before the stipulated time, her candidature for the course would stand cancelled and she will not be entitled to refund of fee paid by her and that in the event of any information being found incorrect or misleading, her candidature would be liable to be cancelled by opposite party No. 4 and that she will not be entitled to refund of any fee paid by her. In our view, declarations in the admission form and the application form are not binding upon the complainant in any manner, particularly when as per record, till date opposite party No. 2 is not affiliated to opposite party No.4 for running B.Sc. MLT (Lateral) regular course or is as its approved learning centre under Distant Education Program. Submission of admission form and application form by the complainant are the result of mis-representation and concealment of true facts by opposite parties No. 1 to 3. Their acts were certainly unlawful. Such a contract cannot be said to be binding.<br /> 15. From an overall assessment of the facts, circumstances and the evidence discussed above, unescapable conclusion is that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are writ large. For this, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Doaba College, Jalandhar Vs. Jitan Bhatia-II(2005)CPJ-309.<br /> 16. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to refund Rs. 32,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the dates of its deposits till payment. For this, we are fortified from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Ajit Singh Kamra Vs. Daljit Kaur and Another-2003(1)CPC-278. Similar view was held in the cases of Shri Devjit Singh Sahota and Others Vs. I.I.T.T College of Engineering and Others-2003)1)CPC-439 and Principal, College of Applied Sciences for Woman Vs. Rajul Jain & Anr.-2006(2)CPC-391. <br /> 17. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have indulged in unfair trade practice. Their act must have caused harassment, mental tension and agony to the complainant and her family. Her educational career was put at stake . She is fortunate enough that unfair trade practice of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 came to her knowledge well within time and she got admission in another college stated to be running regular classes for B.Sc. MLT (Lateral). For this, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are certainly liable to compensate her. In our view, reasonable compensation in the facts and circumstances of this case on this count is Rs.20,000/-. For this, reference may be made to the authority J.Radhakrishnan Vs. A Basheera & Another-2001(2)CLT-225(M.P.) wherein it has been held that award of compensation always involves some sort of speculation and it is very difficult to quantify the amount of compensation on a rationale basis.<br /> 18. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 19. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against opposite parties No. 1 to 3 with costs of Rs.2000/-. It stands dismissed qua opposite party No.4. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Pay Rs. 32,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the dates of its deposit till payment.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14 (1) (d ) of the Act.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 1. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 12.7.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />