STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 390 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 13.09.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 01/10/2013 |
Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh, through its Director
.... Appellant /Opposite Party
V e r s u s
Naveen Kumar Chaudhary s/o Shamsher Singh, R/o Q.No.RE/III-71/B, Old Railway Colony, Kota, Rajasthan
…… Respondent /complainant
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.07.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the Consumer Complaint bearing No.831 of 2012- Naveen Kumar Vs. Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:-
“Resultantly, in view of the foregoings and entirety of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved beyond any doubt the unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Therefore, the present complaint having lot of merit, weight and substance must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
Similar directions are passed in the other consumer complaint cases, details of which are mentioned in Para No.1 of this order.
This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1.00 lakh along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of this order till its actual payment, besides paying litigation cost, as aforesaid”.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]--> The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Party had made wide publicity, through advertisements, internet, brochures, pamphlets, etc., giving assurance about standing, reputation, success and 100% job placement guarantee. It was also represented by the Opposite Party, in its prospectus, for the batch 2010-2012, that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM), which it would provide, was equivalent to Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and recognized by the Association of Indian Universities. It was also held out, by the Opposite Party, in its prospectus that it (Opposite Party) was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Being convinced by the commitments and assurances, given by the Opposite Party, the complainant took admission in its 02 year full time Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agri Business) 2010-2012 Batch, after clearing the entrance test. It was further stated that, it was also committed by the Opposite Party, that it was having healthy relations with Vaikunth Mehta National Institute of Cooperative Management, Pune University, Pune (VAMNICOM), and considered it as its (Opposite Party) Parent-Institute. It was further stated that VAMNICOM students were placed, in reputed organizations, on payment of the same fees, as their degrees were certified by the Association of Indian Universities, equivalent to MBA degree. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, issued Identity-card Ann.C-10, to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.4,53,500/-, as per the payment schedule, given in the prospectus, which included fees, and other charges.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]--> The complainant completed the aforesaid Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agr. Business). The complainant was issued Certificate, Annexure C-11, which reflected that the said Diploma/Course was recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Ministry of HRD, Government of India. In the Certificate, it was nowhere mentioned that the said Diploma had also been recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, meaning thereby, that it was only a Post Graduate Diploma in Management. It was further stated that since the Certificate, issued by the Opposite Party, after the completion of the aforesaid Diploma/Course, did not show that it (Diploma), was equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, as was assured by it (Opposite Party), at the time of admission, the complainant could not get enrolled himself, for Ph.D Course, as, according to the University Grants Commission (UGC) norms, it allowed admission, only if the Diploma/Course was certified by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]--> It was further stated that since after the award of Certificate, aforesaid, there was no campus placement, as assured by the Opposite Party, the complainant had to make efforts of his own, to find a job. It was further stated that by holding out the false assurances, that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, in which the complainant took admission, was certified by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, and that there would be 100% placement of the students, the Opposite Party not only befooled the innocent and immature students, but also duped them of hard earned money. It was further stated that, in this manner, the Opposite Party ruined the career of the complainant, by holding out the aforesaid misleading and false commitments. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Party, to refund the entire amount of Rs.4,53,500/-, deposited by him, on account of fees and other charges, for the aforesaid Diploma/Course, and also pay him compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment, which he underwent for a period of 2 years, but to no avail.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]--> It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to refund the entire amount of Rs.4,53,500/-, deposited by him, on account of fees and other charges, for the aforesaid Diploma/Course, alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; punitive damages, to the tune of Rs.1 lac, for misleading advertisement made through various channels; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.21,000/-.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->6. <!--[endif]--> The Opposite Party, in its written version, pleaded that the complaint was barred by time, as the complainant took admission, in July 2010, and was informed at the start of the session itself, by a notice, placed on the notice board, that the Association of Indian Universities, had not recognized the Diploma, in question, equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, but inspite of that, he continued the studies. It was further pleaded that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT), and the National Cooperative Union of India (NCUI), and, as such, it was liable to be dismissed. It was stated that the complainant had not approached the District Forum, with clean hands, as he deliberately kept silent, for a period of two years, completed the Diploma/Course, and after obtaining the Certificate, aforesaid, raised the issue, for the first time, that the Opposite Party made false and misleading commitments to him. It was further stated that the dispute, in question, did not fall within the domain of the Consumer Fora. It was admitted that the complainant took admission, in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, for the batch 2010-2012. It was further stated that the complainant took admission, voluntarily, and after completion of the Diploma/Course, was issued the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Ministry of HRD, Government of India. It was further stated that inadvertently it was mentioned, in the prospectus that the Diploma, in question, was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. It was further stated that eligibility and the admission process to Masters of Business Administration degree, was highly stringent and competitive, whereas, admission to the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, in the Institute of the Opposite Party was relatively easy. It was further stated that the complainant had chosen to take admission, in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, which had relatively easy admission test. It was further stated that Vaikunth Mehta National Institute of Cooperative Management, Pune University, Pune, and other Institutes, were also working under the control of the National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT). It was further stated that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, of VAMNICOM, Pune, was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Ministry of HRD, Government of India. It was further stated that the Opposite Party had already applied to the Association of Indian Universities, for grant of recognition to the Diploma, in question, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, which was expected at any time. It was further stated that this position was explained to the complainant, as well as to other students. It was further stated that no assurances were given to the complainant and other students, that the Opposite Party guaranteed 100% placement, after the completion of aforesaid Diploma/Course. It was further stated that the Certificate issued to the complainant was not a worthless piece of document, but, on the other hand, it was recognized by the AICTE. It was denied that the complainant was entitled to the refund of fees and compensation. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->7. <!--[endif]--> In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reasserted all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party. It was, however, stated in the rejoinder, that even the claim of the Opposite Party, that it had already applied to the Association of Indian Universities for grant of recognition to the Diploma/Course, in question, as equivalent to Master of Business Administration degree, was untrue. It was further stated that the Opposite Party could only apply for such equivalence, after the third batch of the Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agricultural Business) launched by it, had passed out. It was further stated that the batch of the complainant was the third batch, and only after passing out of the same (batch), such an application for recognition of the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, could be filed, to the Association of Indian Universities.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->8. <!--[endif]--> The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->9. <!--[endif]--> After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->10. <!--[endif]--> Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the appellant/Opposite Party, for setting aside the impugned order, being perverse and illegal.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->11. <!--[endif]--> We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->12. <!--[endif]--> The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, submitted that, it was only on account of a clerical error, that it was stated/published, in the prospectus, copy whereof is Annexure C-1 that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. He further submitted that when it came to the notice of the Opposite Party, a notice on the main notice board was duly affixed, and all the students, including the complainant, were duly informed that it had only applied to the Association of Indian Universities, for the grant of recognition to the Diploma, in question, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. He further submitted that, no assurance was given to the complainant, and other students, that Opposite Party will guarantee 100% placement, after the completion of Post Graduate Diploma in Management. He further submitted that the complainant, knowing fully well that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, had not been recognized, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, by the Association of Indian Universities, continued with the studies, and availed of the services of the Opposite Party. He was issued the Certificate, in respect of the same. He further submitted that the Certificate issued to the complainant, in respect of the Diploma/Course, aforesaid, was recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Ministry of HRD, Government of India, and could not be said to be a waste paper. He further submitted that since the complainant, with eyes wide open, continued with the studies, knowing fully well that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, was not recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, later on, he could not turn round and say that he was entitled to the refund of amount of Rs.4,53,500/-, deposited by him and compensation. He further submitted that the complaint was barred by time as also bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, and, as such, liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that, the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside
<!--[if !supportLists]-->13. <!--[endif]--> On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the Opposite Party misled and duped the complainant, and other students, by holding out, in the prospectus, that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, in question, was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. He further submitted that even in Annexure C-2 letter dated 06.08.2010, sent to the complainant, by the Opposite Party, it was falsely represented that the Institute was committed to cent-percent placement of all its Post Graduate Diploma in Management students, in good and reputed Companies. He further submitted that the Opposite Party, in its written version, in clear-cut terms, stated that the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, of its Institute, was not recognized by the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree. He further submitted that even the version of the Opposite Party, to the effect, that it had already applied for recognition of the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, to the Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to Masters of Business Administration degree, was false, as it could not apply for the same, before passing out of the third batch of students, which event had not yet happe
