Haryana

StateCommission

A/610/2015

DEENBANDHU CHHOTU RAM UNIVERSITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

POONAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.RAVESH

16 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No: 610 & 791 of 2015

Date of Institution: 17.07.2015 & 18.09.2015

Date of Decision: 16.03.2016

 

Appeal No.610 of 2015

 

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

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Poonam Singh d/o Sh. Lal Singh, Resident of B 111, NFL Township, GT Road, Panipat.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      Royal Institute of Management & Technology, Village Chidana, The Gohana, District Sonipat, through its Director/Principal.

 

Respondent/Opposite Parties No. 2

Appeal No.791 of 2015

 

Royal Institute of Management & Technology, Village Chidana, The Gohana, District Sonipat, through its Director/Principal

 

                             Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Poonam Singh d/o Sh. Lal Singh, Resident of B 111, National Fertilizers Limited Township, GT Road, Panipat.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      Deenbandu Chottu Ram, University of Science & Technology, 50^th, KM Mile Stone, NH-1, Murthal, District Sonipat through its Registrar.

 

Respondent/Opposite Parties No. 1

 

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.1.

Shri Suneel Moudgil, Advocate for Poonam Singh-Complainant. 

Shri Amritveer Singh, Advocate for Royal Institute –Opposite Party No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.610 and 791 of 2015 having arisen out of the common order dated June 15^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.96 of 2014.

2.      Deenbandu Chottu Ram, University of Science & Technology, Murthal (for short ‘DCRUST’)-Opposite Party No.1, has filed appeal No.610 of 2015 and Royal Institute of Management & Technology-Opposite Party No.1, has filed appeal No.791 of 2015, for setting aside the impugned order. 

3.      Poonam Singh-Complainant, took admission in, Master of Technology Computer Science & Engineering, with Royal Institute of Management & Technology-Opposite Party/respondent No.2, which is affiliated with Opposite Party No.1. She was admitted in the session of 2012-2013. The opposite party No.2 had given admission on the basis of qualifying examination of Master of Computer Applications (MCA). She appeared for first and second semester examinations. However, thereafter, she was not allowed to appear in the examination and her admission was cancelled 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 Party No.1 stated that the opposite party No. 2 had wrongly admitted the complainant in M. Tech. Computer Science & Engineering. As per ordinance of the University for the Session 2012-13, for taking admission in M. Tech. Computer Science & Engineering; MCA was not the eligibility qualifying examination. Thus, the complainant was admitted without possessing eligibility qualifications.

6.      Opposite Party No. 2 in its reply stated that as per the instructions of Opposite Party No.1/University, a candidate possessing M.Sc. and MCA were eligible for admission to M. Tech (Computer Science & Engineering), and since the complainant had submitted all the documents for the purpose of admission, therefore, she was given admission. The Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra also had the same eligibility criteria. The registration was done by the University/opposite party No.1.

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 respondent No.2 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.four lacs) Lacs) to the complainant and similarly the respondent No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (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 condition is mentioned in Exhibit RW1/B, 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 admissions for the year 2012-13 were governed by Exhibit RW1/B, wherein MCA was not the eligibility qualifications for admission to M. Tech. Computer Science & Engineering.

10.    Learned counsel for the University/Opposite Party No.1 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.1 (DCRUST) and as such the impugned order qua the opposite party No.1/DCRUST cannot sustain. Since, the college authorities/opposite parties No.2 did not adhere to the instructions of the opposite party No.1/ DCRUST, so only they are liable to compensate the complainant.

12.    Accordingly, the appeal No.610 of 2015 filed by opposite party No.1/ DCRUST, is accepted and the impugned order qua the direction to the opposite party No.1 is set aside. Appeal No.791 of 2015, filed by opposite parties No. 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. 2/Royal Institute of Management & Technology.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal No.610 of 2015 be refunded to the opposite party No.1 and amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in appeal No. 791 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