Complaint filed on: 10-08-2010
Disposed on: 28-01-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.1871/2010 and C.C.No.1872/2010
DATED THIS THE 28th JANUARY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER
Complainants: -
CC No.1871/2010
MS.Neetu Singh
D/o. Mr.Narendra Pal Singh,
Aged about 23 years,
Residing at C/o. Nanda Kumar,
Kumbalagodu post,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore south
Taluk, Bangalore -74
CC No.1872/2010
Mr.Abhisek Das
C/o. Mr.Milan Kumar Das,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at C/o. Nanda Kumar,
Kumbalagodu post,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore south
Taluk, Bangalore -74
V/s
Opposite party: -
M/s. Bangalore School of Business
Having its registered office at
15, 18th Main, RBI layout,
Opp. Brigade Millenium Apartment
JP Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore – 78
Represented by its directors
1) Mr.S.P.Reddy
2) Mr.Sunil D.Anto
3) Mr.K.Balasubramanyam
COMMON ORDER
SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,
These two complaints are filed by two different complainants but are filed against the same OP with similar allegations, as such are taken together for disposal by a common order.
2. The complainants of the first and second complaint are herein after referred to as first complainant and second complainant respectively for the sake of convenience.
3. The grievance of the first complainant in brief is, that she enrolled herself in OP School for pursuing MBA for the year 2009 to 2011 after going through prospects of the OP and on the representation of OP, that their institute is affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University. The programme was of full time two years and OP collected Rs.1,71,200/- as total amount and issued receipts. That she some time, in the month of Sept.2009 alongwith other fellow students came to know that the OP was affiliated to the above university only till the year 2008-09 and same is not extended for the academic year 2009-2010. That on enquiry she came to know that the OP is associated with Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILMU) Sikkim which only offered Distance Learning Programme and has no authorization to offer two years full time course. Then they brought it to the notice of the directors of the OP and about their misleading representations. Then the directors of the OP informed her that OP institute is recognized by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University for conducting two years MBA course. That she, believing that OP has affiliated to the Madurai Kamaraj University got admitted to OP school but latter on came to know the lapses of the OP and therefore on 28-10-2009 gave a letter to OP to refund her money. But the OP has failed to refund her money, then herself and other students gave a complaint to the police against the OP and case has been registered against the OP for the offence punishable under section 506 and 420 IPC and therefore has prayed for a direction to the OP to refund her money.
4. The second complainant has also made similar allegations as made by the first complainant against the OP and stated that he has paid in all Rs.1,64,000/- to the OP towards fee and he had also given letters to OP on 13-10-2009 and 28-10-2009 for refund of money, but has not refunded, this complainant also therefore has prayed for a direction to OP to refund his money.
5. Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version, admitting conducting its curriculum in association with reputed universities it had associated with Madurai Kamaraj University since the year 2006 for MBA programme and had enrolled its earlier batches, therefore in the website they had so mentioned. When they were offering program of Madurai Kamaraj University, the said university closed its program across the country and so they tied up with Manonmanian Sundaranar University and EIILM University which have full authority to bestow full time MBA degrees which are also approved by UGC. This was brought to the notice of the students through the notice board. The complainant who was selected for the course was also informed about this, who after satisfying, joined the institution and deposited fee. That they had obtained authorization EIILM University in April 2009 and obtained recognition from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University on 26-6-2009. The OP has further contended that the complainant after attending the classes for several weeks shifted to Acharya leadership and research institute MBA programme. Therefore he voluntarily opted out of the classes for his own reasons and is demanding refund of money. Therefore denying the liability of refunding to such a complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaints.
6. In the course of enquiry into the complaints, the complainants and the OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaints and version. The complainants along with the complaint has produced copies of few letters sent by the OP, copies of letters of EIILM, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and Madurai Kamaraj University addressed to the OP. OP has also produced a copy of public notice issued by university grant commission and a copy of paper cutting. OP has produced a copy of registration form and a copy of rules and regulations. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.
1. Whether the complainants prove that, they were justified in withdrawing their studies from the OP institution and that the OP has caused deficiency in his service in not refunding their fee?
2. To what reliefs, the complainants are entitled to?
8. Our findings are as under:
1. Answer Point No.1: The complainants are justified in
withdrawing from their studies from the OP institution and have proved deficiency in the service of the OP in with holding entire fee paid.
2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order
REASONS
9. Answer on Point No.1: In view of certain admitted facts namely, the complainants having had paid registration and course fee to the OP to pursue their two years MBA course and the complainants admittedly having dis-continued their studies in the OP college, we shall straight away go to the aspects of the complainants withdrawing themselves from the course of OP college and their justification in demanding for refund of fee paid by them and legality of OP in refusing to refund their money.
10. The OP admitted to have issued prospects, registration form and applications to the complainants who sought admission to MBA course in the OP College. The complainants have contended that when they contacted and approached the OP seeking admission, OP alleged to have represented to them, that their college is affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University. The OP of course has denied having made such representation. Assuming for a while that the OP did not represent the complainants that they have recognition of Madurai Kamaraj University, then the prospects issued by them to the complainants must contain details or particular as to which university that OP College is affiliated. But we do not find such information from the prospects or in the applications issued by the OP to the complainants to make them know to which university the college is affiliated. Thus in the absence of such materials in the prospects and other form of the OP, the complainants must have got that information from the OP orally. Therefore, we find force in the statement of the complainants that they were informed by the OP that they have recognition of Madurai Kamaraj University.
11. The complainants have produced copies of receipts for having paid registration fee and course fee. The first complainant has produced a copy of receipt dated 19-3-2009 for having paid registration fee of Rs.15,000/- and other two receipts dated 20-7-2009 for having paid Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.41,200/- respectively. The second complainant has produced three receipts dated 6-6-2009, 8-7-2009 and 8-7-2009 in proof of the payment made. As evident from the first receipt of first complainant, the OP received registration fee very well in advance that is in the month of March 2009 itself and had received payments from the second complainant on 6-6-2009, with this we shall see whether as on the date of these payments and receipts the OP had obtained recognition from any of the Universities at all. The complainants have produced a copy of recognition issued by Madurai Kamaraj University dated 12-8-2008, the said university had issued recognition to OP to conduct MBA course for the academic year 2008-2009 for that one academic year only. The complainants have produced another recognition issued by Estern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University in short EIILM University, Sikkim, recognizing the OP college for running MBA course for the calendar year 2009-2011 and this was issued on 1-4-2009. Admittedly this EIILM University, Sikkim is giving recognition for doing course for distance education and not in regular course. The OP without accepting recognition of this EIILM University then applied for recognition to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tamil Nadu and that university issued recognition to OP College for full time MBA course from the academic year 2009-2010 and this recognition was issued with effect from 6-6-2009. With this now, we shall refer to the date of receipt of fee from the complainants and also congratulation letters issued the complainants by OP on 19-3-2009. Thus it is clear from these undisputed documents of the OP and the materials as on the date of sending congratulation, letters to these complainants in getting admission in the OP’s college and on the date receipt of the course fee, the OP did not have recognition from any of the Universities. Then how did this OP entertained the students, conducted selection process and received heavy course fee is a question that points to the OP which they should answer. Further it is found that Madurai Kamaraj University did not extend recognition, OP applied for recognition from EIILM University, Sikkim and then to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. In this way the OP was not being affiliated to any of the Universities went on applying for recognition and changing the University from time to time. This development and factual aspects naturally created apprehension in the minds of the complainants to look towards the future prospects. As pointed above, the OP without having had any recognition from any University went on conducting selection process, selected candidates received fee, thereafter was searching for recognition from some University which is in our view is un-becoming of any educational institute which naturally lead to the un-certainty in the carrier of the prospective students.
12. The complainants after having studied these situation and on the enquiry found to had not satisfied with the quality of service that the OP had offered and also realizing the name and fame of the University that has given recognition had thought to going out of the course which can never be seen with tainted glass. No doubt the complainants attended the course for some time, but that was because of mis-leading information and process of OP for which the OP itself should be blamed having regard to these facts. We find that the complainants have lost precious period in believing the OP and in spending some period with OP and finally had to quit the course which in our view is a just decision instead of pursuing the course in a college, when it has no recognition from any reputed University. Therefore the OP under these circumstances cannot escape from the liability of refunding the complainants money. With the result, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order:
O R D E R
Complaints are allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,71,200/- to the first complainant and Rs.1,64,000/- to the second complainant within 50 days from the date of this order. Failing which, they shall refund that money with interest at 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.
OP shall also pay cost of Rs.5000/- each to each of these complainants.
The original order shall be kept in complaint No.1871/2010 and the copy of the same shall be kept in the remaining complaint.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th January 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
