Per Shri Narendra Kawde – Hon’ble Member:
(1) This group of appeals preferred by the Appellant – M/s.Rai University against the impugned common order dated 06.05.2010 passed in Consumer Complaints filed by (1) Mr.Nikhil Mohan Nagar (PDF/50/08), (2)Mr.Hinanshu Dungarwal (PDF/268/09), (3)Mr.Amit Choudhary (PDF/82/08), (4)Ms.Swati Choudhary (PDF/83/08), (5)Ms.Ravika Choudhary (PDF/84/08), and (6)Mr.Pradeep Kumar Verma (PDF/85/08) against the Appellant/original Opponent _ M/s.Rai University & Ors. thereby allowing the complaints of the present Respondents/original Complainants with directions to refund the fees of `20,000/- paid towards fifth semester and additionally, amount of `25,000/- towards compensation, `5,000/- towards cost of litigation in each complaint. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common order in all these consumer complaints the Appellant has preferred these appeals on the ground that Appellant was full-fledged university functioning within the ambit of statute as per Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act 1956. By order dated 11.02.2005 the Hon’ble Apex Court, struck down Section 5 & 6 of the Chattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam, 2002 as ultra vires and therefore, the status of Appellant University was rendered null and void. Thereafter, the Appellant took reasonable steps to protect the interest of the students to obtain affiliation with Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik (‘YCMOU’ in short). The Respondents did not fill-up the forms of said YCMOU and preferred to file consumer complaints before the District Forum claiming thereby refund of fees paid for fifth semester and further averred that District Forum erroneously held that Appellant was responsible for delay in mark sheet issued by IASE University and directed to refund the fifth semester fee together with compensation and cost of the litigation.
(2) Heard Ld.Advocates of the parties. Perused the record. The Ld.District Forum has placed factual matrix elaborately of each case of the Complainants who were students of the erstwhile Appellant University. It is undisputed fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court struck down the Sections 5 & 6 of Chattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam, 2002 recognizing the Appellant university. As per the guidelines in the said judgement (SLP bearing No.10506 of 2005) the Appellant University was given direction to approach university in the State for the purpose of affiliation of the students insitu. However, the request made by the Appellant University for the purpose of affiliation to the Pune University was rejected. The semester exam conducted by the Appellant University in the month of June, 2005, somehow, the mark-sheet to the Respondents/original Complainants-students was supplied only in the month of April, 2006.
(3) After persuasion, YCMOU agreed for the affiliation and the agreement was reached on 05.08.2006 and public notice published in the newspaper in the month of September, 2006. However, in the process the academic year of the Respondents/Students was lost though the Appellant University made all endeavor to avoid wastage of valuable academic year of the students, as the mark sheets were supplied in the month of April, 2006 of the semester exam conducted in June, 2005. Unreasonable delay in supply of mark sheet certainly resulted into loss of valuable time for the Respondents/students as they could not manage admission anywhere to the affiliated university and ultimately when YCMOU agreed for affiliation by that time it was in the month of September, 2006. This timelag indicates wastage of almost one academic year of the Respondents/students. There is no sufficient justification on record or in the pleadings of the Appellant’s Ld.Advocate to justify wastage of academic year for want of mark sheets in the hands to proceed for securing admissions in pursuance of efforts of affiliation to other universities. We observe that all other issues have been properly appreciated and considered by the Ld.District Forum while passing the impugned order. We therefore find no fault in the impugned order and no reason to take different view than what has been taken by the District Forum. Thus the appeal is devoid of merit and impugned order cannot be faulted with. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal Nos.(1) A/772/2010, (2)A/773/2010, (3)A/774/2010, (4)A/775/2010, (5)A/776/2010 and (6)A/777/2010 stand dismissed.
(ii) In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 13th March, 2012.
