IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 173/06 DATED 07-12-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant Hariprasad.N.V.,S/o Late Venugopal, R/at D.No.668, E & F Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.M.G.Siddaraju, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. M/s Rai University, Rep. by it’s Manager Directorate of Distance Learning Rai University, Gottigere Village, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore.<br /> 2. Suresh Sachdev, C.E.O., Rai University, VIP Road, Manacamp, Raipur-492015.<br /> 3. M/s Namitha Jawahar,Senior Executive, Rai University, 15th Mile Stone, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 083.<br /> 4. The Manager, Directorate of Distance Learning Rai Unviersity, A-41, M.C.I.E. Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110 044.<br /> 5. Dr.Abid Hussain, Chancellor, Rai University, VIP Road, Manacamp, Raipur-492015.<br /> 6. Dr.K.C.Agrwal, Vice-Chancellor, Rai University, VIP Road, Manacamp, Raipur-492015.<br /> 7. Mr.Fenthilkumar, Admission Head, Rai University, 15th Mile Stone, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 083.<br /> (By Sri.M.B. Advocate for O.P.1 and 3 andO.P. 2 and 4 to 7 - dismissed)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 23-06-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 19-07-2006 <br /> Date of order : 07.12.2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 4 ½ MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member, <br /> <br /> 1. The complainant joined the M.B.A. Course offered by the opponents through correspondence. The Opposite parties – “Rai University” is represented by the Manager, Directorate of Distance Learning and a Senior Executive. The opponents had issued a prospectus, which proclaimed it be “a full pledged” Government Recognized University. The complainant, believing these words joined the course in August 2004 by paying registration fee of Rs.1,000/-, prospectus fee of Rs.600/- and 1st installment of the tuition fee amounting to Rs.11,000/-.<br /> 2. The complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite parties on 13-01-2005 seeking permission to appear for the exams in May 2005 instead of February 2005. But, he received no reply. <br /> 3. On 12.03.2005, the complainant learnt that Rai University had been De-recognised. Hence he sent E-mail to both Bangalore and New Delhi themselves seeking clarification, but he received no response. Therefore, he wrote another letter on 06.05.2005 seeking refund of the amount paid by him, but there was no reply for even this letter. It is therefore, the case of the Complainant that he lost 1½ years and also the money paid by him because of the illegal act of the Opposite party. He has claimed a compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- with interest at 12% p.a.<br /> 4. The Opposite parties have filed a common version, the first defence of the Opposite parties is in respect of the jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this Complaint. In view of the fact that the prospectus specifically contains a stipulation that disputes or claims would be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in New Delhi.<br /> 5. The second defence is that the relationship between the Complainant and the University is that of his student and teacher and as such there is no element of service as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. It is also submitted by the Opposite parties that the Complainant is a defaulter due to his failure to pay the second installment of the tuition fee and the examination fee at Rs.100/- per subjection.<br /> 6. Regarding the De-recognisition of the University, the Opposite parties have merely said that it is not relevant to the adjudication of the present Complaint. <br /> 7. In view of the above contention, the following points arise for our consideration. <br /> I. Whether the Complaint is maintainable?<br /> II. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties? <br /> III. Whether the complainant proves that the Opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice?<br /> IV. What relief or order?<br /> <br /> 8. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.I : In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.II : In the affirmative<br /> Point no.III : In the negative.<br /> Point no.IV : As per the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 9. Point No.I:- It is the specific contention of the Opposite parties that this forum does not have jurisdiction. In view of the fact that the prospectus issued by them contains a specific stipulation that disputes are subject to the jurisdiction of courts in New Delhi. The prospectus filed by the Opposite parties does not contain any such stipulation. However, hard copy of the web page of the Opposite parties detailing the admission procedure contains the said stipulation. The web page has been filed as Ex.P.2. It is essential to note that the jurisdiction can neither be conferred nor taken away by agreement between the parties, where such jurisdiction is provided by the statute itself. In this regard, we would like to rely upon a decision of the Apex Court in ABC Laminar (P) Ltd., -Vs- A.P. Agencies Salem (AIR 1989 SC 1239) wherein it is held that challen, invoice and other documents containing clause that “All disputes subject to Kashipur Jurisdiction” conclusive words only, alone or exclusive are not used in the clause. So, the above clause does not bar the jurisdiction of other courts having jurisdiction. It is seen from the stipulation in Ex.P.2 that the words “only” or “alone” are not used. Hence, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of section 11(2)(c) of the C.P.Act. The University run by the Opposite parties conducts correspondence courses, which a student in any corner of the country can join. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the cause of action has arisen in Mysore, where the complainant resides at where he learnt that the University from where he is taking the course has been de-recognized.<br /> 10. The other contention of the Opposite parties is that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between themselves and the complainant. According to them, it is a teacher and student relationship and therefore, outside the scope of C.P.Act. There are number of decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission and various State Commissions to the effect that education is covered under the definition of service under the C.P.Act. The Apex Court in BWSSB Vs. Rajappa (AIR 1978 SC 548) has reiterated that imparting of education comes under definition of service. The definition of service under section 2(o) is vide enough to cover education also we do not for a moment think that the Complainant is not a consumer. In view of the above, we answer the point in the affirmative.<br /> 11. Point no.II:- The complainant is complaining about two things. Firstly, when he wrote to them requesting for permission to take the exams in May 2005 instead of February 2005, he received no reply. Secondly, when he emailed to them seeking clarification about the de-recognization of the University, he received no reply. The Opposite parties have stated that the Complainant is a defaulter not having paid the 2nd installment of the tuition fee. The question of permitting him to take exams also does not arise as he did not pay the exam fee. It is seen from the documents filed by the complainant that he paid the 1st installment of tuition fee amounting to Rs.11,000/- on 13.10.2004. He was required to pay the 2nd installment of Rs.7,000/- within three months after the registration. Since, he has not produced the receipt for having paid this amount it should be deemed that he has not paid the 2nd installment. It is, also, seen from the prospectus that he was required to pay Rs.100/- per subject as exam fee. He has not produced any documents to show that he paid this amount. He has written two letters on 13.01.2005, and 08.03.2005 requesting for permission to take the exams in May 2005. He should have paid the 2nd installment of the tuition fee by that time. In view of his own default, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the Opposite parties. Hence, we answer the point in the negative.<br /> 12. Point no.III:- Coming to the de-recognization aspect, it is seen that the Complainant has relied upon a News paper item which appeared on 20.03.2005 in Kannada News paper – Prajavanai. The write up is on a discussion in the Karnataka State Legislature where a reference has also been made to Rai University in the course of discussion about unrecognized Universities. The prospectus issued by the Opposite parties proclaims that it is a full pledged Government Recognized University. After seeing the News paper item, the Complainant has written to the Opposite parties seeking refund of the money paid by him because the University had been de-recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Though, there is virtually no material placed by the Complainant in support of his allegation and has relied heavily on the newspaper item. The Opposite party has not met the Complainant’s allegation either in his version or when an opportunity was given by this Forum at the argument stage. The Opposite parties in his version has merely said that the issue of de-recognisition is not relevant to the adjudication of the Complaint. Since, the issue of recognisition or de-recognisition is very important and has a bearing on the prospects and future of the Complainant it cannot be over looked. By not meeting the allegation of the Complainant, the Opposite parties have virtually admitted the allegation that the University does not have proper recognisition. In the course of the argument also, the Opposite party merely said that the University is recognized by Government of Chhatisghad. No document is produced in support of such averment. The Complainant has reasons to feel apprehensive about his future and the validity of the degree conferred by the Opposite parties. The Opposite parties had a responsibility to reply to the E-mails sent by the Complainant seeking clarification about the recognisition of the University. However, the Opposite parties never bothered to send any reply to the Complainant. Since, the Opposite parties have neither clarified the Complainant nor gave any acceptable explanation to this Forum, on the issue of recognisition, we conclude that the proclamation made on the prospectus that it is a Government Recognized University is false. Making such false proclamation amounts to unfair trade practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Such unfair trade practice will have larger repercussion on students who may be mislead by such advertisement and join the course conducted by the Opposite parties thereby become victims. It will have a serious ramification on their future besides affecting them in terms of time and money. Such unfair trade practice has to be penalized heavily to caution such institutions so as to prevent them from publication of information which are not true. They must be restrained them from exploiting the youth by misdirecting them. We therefore, answer the point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following the order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> 2. The Opposite party is directed to refund the Complainant tuition fee and registration fee amounting to Rs.12,600/- within two months from the date of this order, failing which such amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a. thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> <br /> 3. The Opposite parties shall pay the Complainant compensation of Rs.5,000/- within 2 months from the date of this order, failing which such amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a. thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> <br /> 4. The Opposite parties shall remit Rs.25,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund maintained by this Forum within two months from the date of this order, failing which such amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a. thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> 5. No costs. <br /> <br /> 6. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 7th December 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br />