Haryana

StateCommission

A/609/2015

DEENBANDHU CHHOTU RM UNIVERSITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAMRTA - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.RAVESH

16 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal Nos: 609 & 775 of 2015

Date of Institution: 17.07.2015 & 11.09.2015

Date of Decision: 16.03.2016

 

 

Appeal No.609 of 2015

 

Deenbandu Chottu Ram, University of Science & Technology, Murthal, District Sonipat.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.3

Versus

 

1.      Namrata d/o Sh. Rajinder Singh and wife of Shri Punit, Resident of Sugar Mills, Sonipat.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      P.M. Engineering College through its Chairman Shri Vijay Pal Nain at Village Kami, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

3.      Dr. Vijay Pal Nain, Chairman, P.M. Engineering College, Village Kami, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Appeal No.775 of 2015

 

1.      P.M. Engineering College through its Chairman Shri Vijay Pal at Village Kami, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

3.      Dr. Vijay Pal Nain, Chairman, P.M. Engineering College, Village Kami, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

 

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Versus

 

1.      Namrata d/o Sh. Rajinder Singh and wife of Shri Punit, Resident of Sugar Mills, Sonipat.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      Deenbandu Chottu Ram, University of Science & Technology, Murthal, District Sonipat.

Respondent/Opposite Party No.3

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Shri R.K. Ravesh, Advocate for University/Opposite Party No.3.

Shri Sushil Jain, Advocate for Namrata-Complainant.  

Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate for P.M. Engineering College and its Chairman/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.609 and 775 of 2015 having arisen out of the common order dated June 10^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.479 of 2013.

2.      Deenbandu Chottu Ram, University of Science & Technology, Murthal (for short ‘DCRUST’)-Opposite Party No.3, has filed appeal No.609 of 2015 and P.M. Engineering College and its Chairman, have filed appeal No.775 of 2015, for setting aside the impugned order.  

3.        Namrata-Complainant, took admission in Master of Technology Computer Science & Engineering, with P.M. College of Engineering-Opposite Party No.1, which is affiliated with opposite party No.3. She was admitted in the session of 2012-2013. The opposite party No.1 had given admission on the basis of qualifying examination of Master of Computer Applications (MCA). She appeared for first semester examination held in November/December, 2012. However, during the examination of second semester, she was not allowed to appear on the ground that she did not fulfill the eligibility qualifications as MCA was not one of the qualifying examinations for admission in M. Tech. (Computer Science & Engineering). 

4.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking refund of the fee deposited; compensation of Rs.10.00 lacs etcetera.

5.      Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their joint reply stated that the admission was purely on the basis of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) norms. The registration was done by the University/opposite party No.3.

6.      Opposite Party No.3, in its separate reply stated that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 had wrongly admitted the complainant in M. Tech (Computer Science & Engineering) Course. As per ordinance of the University for the Session 2012-13, for taking admission in M. Tech Course (Computer Science & Engineering), MCA was not the eligibility qualifying examination. Thus, the complainant was admitted without possessing eligibility qualifications.

7.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint directing the opposite parties as under:-

“….we direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.Four Lacs to the complainant and similarly the respondent No.3 is also directed to pay Rs.One Lac to the complainant for rendering deficient services, for indulging themselves into unfair trade practice, for causing unnecessary mental agony & harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”

8.      We have seen the eligibility criteria for admission to M. Tech (Computer Science & Engineering) in the Sessions 2012-13. The eligibility question is mentioned in Exhibit R3/1, the relevant portion of which is as under:-

Name of the Program	Qualifying degree with relevant disciplines required for admission
M.Tech (Computer Science & Engineering)	B.E./B.Tech in Computer Science & Engg./Information Tech./ Electronics/ Electronics & Communication Engg./ Electronics & Telecommunication/ Electronics & Instrumentation Control.

 

9.      A perusal of eligibility for admission to M. Tech. Computer Science & Engineering; does not find mention MCA to be one of the qualifying examination. The District Forum relying upon document Exhibit R-3, allowed the complaint wherein MCA was also mentioned as the eligibility examination. Exhibit R-3, is the copy of the proceedings of the meeting of Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor with Directors/Principals of affiliated Colleges & Deans and officers of the University held on 04.12.2014 and circulated on 14.01.2015, vide Endst. No.DCRUST/CB/12/20/45-86. In the said meeting, vide resolution item No.9.1, MCA was decided to be added as one of the academic qualification for admission to M.Tech in CSE, ECE. The District Forum ignored the date of proceedings of this document. The above said decision was taken on 04.12.2014 and circulated during January, 2015 and was only prospective in nature. It was not to regularize the admissions pertaining to the year 2012-13. The admissions for the year 2012-13 were governed by Exhibit R3/1, wherein MCA was not the eligibility qualifications for admission to M. Tech. Computer Science & Engineering.

10.    Learned counsel for the University has placed on the file a noting (Annexure-B) whereby the college was directed to supply the documents of students admitted in the Sessions 2012-13. It was found that the College-Opposite Party No.2 had granted admission in violation of the criteria of eligibility qualifications and intentionally withheld the documents pertaining to the students admitted in the session 2012-13. It is the opposite party No.2/college who had admitted the students in violation of the eligibility qualifications and the University had no concern with the admission.

11.    In view of the above it is established that the District Forum fell in error issuing direction to the Opposite Party No.3 (DCRUST) and as such the impugned order qua the DCRUST cannot sustain. Since, the college authorities/opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not adhere to the instructions of the opposite party No.3/ DCRUST, so they are liable to compensate the complainant.

12.    Accordingly, the appeal No.609 of 2015 filed by opposite party No.3/ DCRUST, is accepted and the impugned order qua the direction to the opposite party No.3 is set aside. Appeal No.775 of 2015, filed by opposite parties No.1 and 2, is dismissed. It is directed that that the entire amount of compensation granted by the District Forum shall be paid by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal No.609 of 2015 be refunded to the opposite party No.3 and amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in appeal No. 775 of 2015 be refunded to the complainant, against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 16.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL