FA.No.544/2007 AGAINST C.C.No.124/2006  DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD

Between:

G.Madan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Kumara

Swamy Reddy, Railway Quarters

No.75/B, Vivekananda Nagar,

Gunthakal, Anantapur Dist.,                                                                             Appellant/

                                                                                                                            Complainant

                   A N D

M/s The ICFAI Institute of

Science and Technology Campus Programme

Admission Department 45, Nagarjuna Hills,

Panjagutta, Hyderabad-82, rep. by its Chancellor.                                                   Respondent/

                                                                                                                                       Opposite party

  Counsel for the Appellant:Mr.M.Ramgopal Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent:-Respondent served.

QUORUM:      SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

&

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order( Per Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
***

This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant against the opposite party institution.

The facts as narrated are as under:

The complainant sought admission from the opposite party institution obviously attracted by the course offered.  In pursuance of the admission, he paid fees for the entire one year in a sum of Rs.80,600/- in order to study B.Tech degree in the respondent university.  Soon he realized that the opposite party institution had no recognition and was neither approved by AICTE nor having tie up with BITS Pilani and other institutions as claimed by it.  Disillusioned by this adverse information, the complainant pulled himself out from the institution by issuing a notice.  The opposite party institution refunded the caution deposit of Rs.14,000/- but declined to pay the other amounts representing college fees etc.  He unsuccessfully tried to persuade to get back the said amount by issuing a notice but in vain.  As such he filed the consumer complaint claiming refund of the balance amount due from the institution in a sum of Rs.66,600/- with interest as also compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

The claim came to be resisted by the opposite party which filed a counter contradicting that it had no recognition and also adverting to the terms in the brochure to the effect that fees once paid cannot be refunded and the student had obtained admission with his eyes wide open in as much as he had access to the brochure which contained all the details according to the opposite party. 

In support of his case, the complainant filed his own affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A15. The opposite parties on the other hand also filed affidavit and relied upon exhibits marked as Exs.B1 to B5. 

On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the District Forum dismissed the complaint accepting the pleas taken by the opposite party to the effect that the complainant voluntarily took admission after perusing the brochure that he was bound by the terms and conditions set out in the brochure and that ultimately he himself pulled out of the institute voluntarily and therefore cannot be granted any relief.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed the present appeal taking the usual grounds especially to the effect that when the institution could not readily establish that it had recognition and yet taken students.  Such overt acts constitute the height of deficiency and in that view of the matter, it is a fit case to grant the entire relief asked for.

Heard.  The points that arise for consideration are

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1)                                  <!--[endif]-->Whether the complainant/appellant could establish any deficiency in service against the opposite party?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2)                                  <!--[endif]-->Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum? To what extent?

The deficiency attributed to the opposite party institution by the complainant is very clear in the sense that the institution resorted to intake of students naturally dreaming to get a good degree in technology and when the institution turns out to be one without recognition not only the dreams of the students will be shattered but their whole career will be marred.  It is further contended that luckily the student realized the fallacy in prosecuting the studies in an institution without recognition at the earliest point of time and had withdrawn from the institution.  There should be no two opinions that an institution which offers admissions without proper recognition cannot be characterized as embarking upon a valid course of action as it is ab-initio entrenched in deficiency in service.  There is absolutely no evidence on behalf of the opposite party which is in peculiar know of things as to the fact whether it possessed or not the recognition and on the other hand it resorted to empty granules and assertions saying hat it had recognition but the document evidencing such recognition had never seen the light of the day.  None of the documents under Exs.B1 to B5 relied upon by the opposite party embodied the factum of the proceedings according recognition to the said institution.  In other words, it did not adduce any documentary evidence in order to prove that it had recognition.  It is a matter of common knowledge that an institution running out without accreditation like recognition is no institution capable of coaching students with degrees, in the eye of law.  In other words, the want of recognition is fundamental breach on the part of the opposite party and nothing less than unfair trade practice.  Even in the counter except reiterating a bald denial of the allegations that the institution had no recognition they did not resort to any other cogent evidence to prove the contrary.  Thus the fundamental fallacy in the conduct of the institution is manifest from this circumstance alone.  The District Forum lost sight of this essential fact and readily agreed with the pleas taken by the opposite party and dismissed the complaint.  It is rather surprising that the opposite party in respect of the very fundamental fallacy fastened to it as pointed out contended two circumstances in order to exonerate itself from the liability.  The first and foremost is that the student had taken admission with his eyes wide open after seeing the brochure and therefore it does not lie in his mouth to say that there was no recognition to the institution is simply fallacious.  When there is considerable publicity about a university, it is but natural for the young students to be lured by these advertisements and nobody would ever think in terms of checking or verifying the recognition.  When once an allegation is made against the institution that it had no recognition, it is incumbent upon the institution itself to clarify the doubt and come out unscathed from an onslaught in a court of law.  So the plea that the student ought to have been alive to the reality is an unholy attempt to harness an adage of caveat emptor in a wrong place.  Then coming to the other ground urged was that the rules set out in the brochure clearly indicate that the fees once paid cannot be refunded.  But before urging that point, it is incumbent upon the opposite party to show that what it collected was fees in the conventional sense as if any fees is collected without any recognition that would hardly answer the description of fees and lies somewhere in the border of ransom.  Therefore, the opposite party/respondent cannot be heard to plead that the brochure would bind him.  As a matter of fact the brochure resorted to by the opposite party in this matter of running a institution without recognition is not only a nullity but also opposed to public policy and the so called contract based on misrepresentation or suppression of truth or suggestion of false promises would at once liable to be quashed as non est.   This takes us to the fact that false overt acts attributed to the opposite party not cared to be controverted with full force of evidence, inspite of being in a position to possess personal knowledge to the contrary, if any, would constitute not merely the normal deficiency but the height of deficiency.  The finding on the above point clearly shows that the order of the District Forum utterly is untenable in law as such it is necessary in the interest of justice that it should be set aside and instead a positive order in favour of the complainant has to be passed which is being presently done under the next issue.

For the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and consequently allowing the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant and as a further consequence directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant/appellant a sum of Rs.66,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization besides a further amount of Rs.5,000/-by way of costs to be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.  As the amount is ordered to be refunded with interest, we are not inclined to grant any separate compensation.

                                                                        Sd/

                                                                                                                                                MEMBER.

                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                                                           22-10-2009