Haryana

Sonipat

479/2013

Namrta d/o Rajender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.M. Engineering Collage,2. Dr. Vijay Pal Nain,3. D-Crust University - Opp.Party(s)

Miss Seema Jain

02 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                        SONEPAT.

                                           

                             Complaint No.479 of 2013

                             Instituted on:29.11.2013

                             Date of order:10.06.2015

 

Namrta d/o Rajender Singh and wife of Punit, resident of Sugar Mills, Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.PM Engineering College through its Chairman Vijay Pal at village Kami, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

2.Dr Vijay Pal Nain Chairman of PM Engineering College at Kami village Sonepat.

3.D-CRUST University through its Dean Dr JS Saini at Murthal, Sonepat.

        ……..Respondents.

         

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Ms. Seema Jain, Adv. for complainant.

          Sh.  Neeraj Malik, Adv. for respondent no.1 & 2.

          Sh.  Kuldeep Dahiya, Adv. for respondent no.3.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

       Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she was given admission by the respondent no.1 and 2 in the year 2012 in M Tech course by giving assurance to the complainant that the said engineering college has the eligibility of giving admission in M.Tech course to the students who had done MCA.  The complainant passed the Ist Semester and has paid the fees for second semester to the tune of Rs.35000/-.  The complainant when appeared in 4^th paper in second semester in the month of April/May, 2013, she was not allowed to give her paper by the respondent no.3  by saying that she was not eligible to give the said exam as she has passed her MCA course and the University official said that the university has not given permission to PM Engg. College to give admission to the students who have done MCA in M Tech course in their college.  The complainant has approached the respondents to give her relief and not to waste her valuable time unnecessarily, but the respondents failed to pay any heed to the requests of the complainant and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment.   The respondent no.3 is also the guilty of deficiency in service and negligence as the said university has also contributed with the PM Engg. College in wasting her precious year of education.  So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1,2 and 3 appeared and they filed their reply separately.

         The respondents no.1 and 2 in their reply have submitted that the admission was purely given on the basis of AICTE norms.  So, they are not responsible for cancellation of admission of the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is directly related to DCRUST University, Murthal. The complainant has not suffered any irreparable loss at the hands of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.3 in its reply has submitted that the respondents no.1 and 2 have wrongly admitted the complainant in M.Tech Course (Computer Science & Engg.). The qualification for admission to M.Tech is BE/B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering/Information Tech/Electronics/Electronics & Communication & Engineering/Electronics and Telecommunication/Electronics & Instrumentation Control.  Her registration was cancelled as she was admitted in M.Tech on the basis of her passing MCA in lower examination which is a violation of M.Tech, Ordinance, 2012-13.  MCA is not eligibility for admission to M.Tech.

3.       We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.  We have also perused the written arguments submitted by the respondent no.2 very minutely and carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant was given admission by the respondent no.1 and 2 in the year 2012 in M Tech course by giving assurance to the complainant that the said engineering college has the eligibility of giving admission in M.Tech course to the students who had done MCA.  The complainant passed the Ist Semester and has paid the fees for second semester to the tune of Rs.35000/-.  The complainant when appeared in 4^th paper in second semester in the month of April/May, 2013, she was not allowed to give her paper by the respondent no.3  by saying that she was not eligible to give the said exam as she has not passed her MCA course and the University official said that the university has not given permission to PM Engg. College to give admission to the students who have done MCA in M Tech course in their college.  The complainant has approached the respondents to give her relief and  not to waste her valuable time unnecessarily, but the respondents failed to pay any heed to the requests of the complainant and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment.   The respondent no.3 is also the guilty of deficiency in service and negligence as the said university has also contributed with the PM Engg. College in wasting her precious year of education.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 have submitted that the admission was purely given on the basis of AICTE norms.  So, they are not responsible for cancellation of admission of the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is directly related to DCRUST University, Murthal. The complainant has not suffered any irreparable loss at the hands of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 in its reply has submitted that the respondents no.1 and 2 have wrongly admitted the complainant in M.Tech Course (Computer Science & Engg.). The qualification for admission to M.Tech is BE/B.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering/Information Tech/Electronics/

Electronics & Communication & Engineering/Electronics and Telecommunication/Electronics & Instrumentation Control.  Her registration was cancelled as she was admitted in M.Tech on the basis of her passing MCA in lower examination which is a violation of M.Tech, Ordinance, 2012-13.  MCA is not eligibility for admission to M.Tech.

         We have perused the document Ex.R3 very carefully therein at page no.4(9.1 Eligibility Criteria for M.Tech. Programme) it is mentioned that:-

(ii)M.Sc. (Physics/Maths/Computer/Electronics) and MCA will also be added to the academic qualification

for M.Tech. admission in CSE, ECE.

         This Document Ex.R3 was endorsed vide no.DCRUST/CB/12/20/45-86 DATED 14.1.2015.

         Meaning thereby, the plea of the respondent no.3 that the complainant’s registration was cancelled as she was admitted in M.Tech on the basis of her passing MCA in lower examination which is a violation of M.Tech, Ordinance, 2012-13.  MCA is not eligibility for admission to M.Tech, is tenable in the eyes of law because as per document Ex.R3 M.Sc. (Physics/Maths/Computer/Electronics) and MCA will also be added to the academic qualification for

M.Tech. admission in CSE, ECE and this was done by the respondent no.3 vide endorsement no. DCRUST/CB/12/20/45-86 DATED 14.1.2015 and the respondents no.1 and 2 wrongly and illegally gave admission to the complainant  in M.Tech course particularly when the complainant was not having eligible qualification for M.Tech course in the academic year 2012-13 as per Ordinance 2012-13.  In this way, the complainant due to the deficient services rendered by the respondents no.1 and 2, has lost her valuable time of education and besides this, she has to suffer unnecessary mental agony and harassment.  In our view, the complainant has been able to prove unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.  The observations of this Forum are fortified by the case law titled as Markssoft Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Singh Shekhawat, 2014(III) CPJ 533( NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that State Commission categorically observed that question whether complainant was graduate or not was not an issue to be decided at that stage of matter, because at the time of admission, if complainant did not have requisite eligibility/qualification, he should not have been allowed admission to course-Unfair trade practice proved.

         The Hon’ble National Commission in another case titled as HCMI Education Vs. Narendra Pal Singh 2013(III) CPJ 121(NC) has held that OP No.2 was not following the approved curriculum of CHED for running MBBS programme-Ops intention was to mint money-Complainant’s career was spoiled-OP No.1 cannot wriggle out of the predicament, created by it, by saying that it was only facilitator-Both Ops were rightly jointly and severally held liable to refund fee-Unfair trade practice proved”.
         The Hon’ble National Commission in another case titled as IIIT College of Engineering Vs. Vikas Sood & others, 2013(III) CPJ 253(NC)  has held that Foras below rightly held that Degree course for information & Technology being conducted by the petitioner’s college for session 2000-2001 was neither affiliated with HP University nor with AICTE Delhi-Unfair trade practice conducted by petitioner’s college established-Costs of Rs.10,000/- awarded”.

         Taking into consideration the above cited law, we are of the view that unfair trade practice conducted by the respondents no.1 and 2 have been established.

         Similarly there is also deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3 because had the respondent no.3 been careful and had the respondent no.3 timely check-up the documents of the complainant, the spoiling of valuable time of education of the complainant could have been saved and the complainant may not have suffered any mental agony or harassment.

         The complainant by way of present complaint has sought the compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, which in our view, is on a very higher side.  However, in  our view, Rs.Five Lacs would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby 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.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 10.06.2015