DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 600/2014
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
30.10.2014 11.11.2014 17.07.2015
Complainant = Vs. = O.Ps.
Sri Sanjib Biswas Rabindra Bharati University
S/o. Sudhir Biswas Directorate of Distance Education
residing at Rabindra Bhavan, EE-9 & 10,
Vill & P.O.-Taraknagar, Sector-II, Salt Lake City,
Dist-Nadia, Pin-741502 Kolkata-700106.
J U D G E M E N T
Facts of the case, in short, is that the OP is a renowned Educational Institution, situated at Rabindra Bhavan, EE-9 & 10, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700106.
Complainant stated that the complainant is a student enrolled herself for a Post Graduate Diploma Course in NGO Management vide enrollment no-99/DNM/0011/11 against a Paper Publication Admission Notice No-DDE/RBU/DR/0033/11 in Anandabazar Patrika, Kolkata dated 28th August, 2011 for the academic session 2011-2012 against payment of course fee of Rs 15, 000/-
Complainant also stated that the complainant has paid the cost of total course fee of Rs 15, 000/- at a time vide Challan No-7318 dated 20-Sep-2011 at Allahabad Bank, the prescribed banker of the University.
Complainant further stated that the complainant has been provided with enrolment certificate serial no-01719 Dated 23-November-2011, confirming her enrolment no-99/DNM/0011/11 and provided an identity card confirming her date of admission for the said course is 23-November-2011.
Complainant stated that the complainant took the admission for the above mentioned course with the aspiration to excel her educational background for the professional career in her life and accordingly arranged the course fee amount with the help and support of the parents hard earned money.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. Case No.-600/2014
- :: 2 :: -
Complainant also stated that after few months the complainant observed that, the University is reluctant to take the regular assured classes which supposed to be held on every Saturday and on Sunday of every week. Instead it has been noticed that, the University used to take the classes once in a weekdays and that to by sending intimation over phone to any of the batch mate. For the irregular service of notice sometimes the complainant used to miss the classes to attend. Moreover, even at the beginning of the course there was no proper schedule of classes.
Complainant further stated that in the process after about 5 to 6 months University stopped any classes for the reason best known to them and never bothered to intimate the complainant as well as the other students about the fate of the course for which the complainant seek the admission.
Complainant stated that according to the criteria of the course, the complainant has to undergo a field work at the organization as per recommendation of the course Coordinator/University or to such organization as per choice of the complainant under intimation to the University. In this part the OP has not failed but also neglected to intimate the complainant about the appropriate time to undergo such field work. Number of times the complainant has to visit the course Coordinator/University to know the exact date to start their field work. After a vigorous follow-up the University intimated M/s. Southern Health Improvement Samity (SHIS) Society a Social Organization (NGO) vide letter ref. No-99/DNM/CPFW/13/2012 dated 22.08.2012 to make their field work.
Complainant also stated that after completion of the field work successfully, the complainant was patiently waited for the University to take the balance classes to complete the study and for the examination to appear. But the OP never bothered to call the complainant as well as the other batch mates of the complainant to intimate about the probable date of examination.
Complainant further stated that OP even failed to provide the full course materials to the complainant. Whatever, little they have provided that to in illegible Xerox of some documents. In the meantime as per announcement the academic session got over without any opportunity for the complainant to appear for an examination to get her desired award of Diploma of the above mentioned course, since the University has failed and not held any examination in due time.
Complainant stated that even after completion of the academic session, the University failed to announce the dates for the examination for the above mentioned course for next one and half years.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 3/-
C. C. Case No.-600/2014
- :: 3 :: -
Complainant also stated that in the process more than almost 3 years has been crossed on the non-cooperation from all corners of the University, the complainant lost faith on the University and apprehend doubts on the activities of the University as well as about the fate of the course which they publicly announced along with the mission for which the University established for. In the meantime, the complainant enquired with the University vide letter dated 18.11.2013 about the course status and examination schedule.
Complainant further stated that getting frustrated and mentally stressed the complainant lost all faith on the University and gave up his all hopes about the future of the course and studies and in process complainant became out of touch of the total course so far he studied.
Complainant stated that since the University failed to communicated with the complainant about the status and probable date of examination in due time for the course, the complainant again submitted a registered letter dated 29.04.2014 to the University requesting them to refund the course fee in the absence of non-completion of the announced course in time. Even after receipt of the second letter, the University maintains its silence for another two months to call the complainant and other students.
Complainant also stated that on 11.06.2014 some official from the University call the complainant and inform that the Director of the University will meet the complainant and instead of the Director some official met with the complainant and after some discussion with her, he made a note sheet on a plain white paper that, Exam for NGO Management-2011 will be held in October, 2014 and force her to write on the same paper about her comment.
Complainant further stated that the complainant then and there made it very clear to the said official that, after a period of almost two years without in touch of studies about the course it was not possible for her to appear for the Examination as they desired and requested the University to make necessary arrangement to refund of the course fee which she deposited since the University failed to complete the course in due time.
Complainant stated that in the process the complainant had to suffer both mentally and financially due to irresponsibility, negligence and providing deficiency in service done by the OP.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 4/-
C. C. Case No.-600/2014
- :: 4 :: -
Complainant also stated that the complainant is still suffering mentally for not achieving the desired educational qualification which has been caused due to wrong and negligent treatment of the OP and as such the complainant is entitled to get compensation for wrong and gross negligence and deficiency in service of the OP. Hence the complaint.
OP has contested the case by filing written version.
OP stated that the complainant had been enrolled in the course of one year P.G. Diploma in N.G.O. Management for the academic session 2011-12 and the examination for the said course held in the month of December, 2014.
OP also stated that the complainant inspite of repeated intimation by telephone and by letters the complainant did not turn up in the said examination even the complainant did not deposit the examination fee of Rs 1100/- , but the other students of the same batch have been appeared in the examination.
OP further stated that the complainant has paid Rs 15, 000/- as course fees and the complainant has attended the classes and taken the course and completed the same, therefore, refund of course-fee does not arise at all and the University cannot refund the course fee as claimed by the complainant. The complainant did not sit in the examination as well as she has not paid the examination fees.
OP i.e. the University stated that this is not at all true that the University was reluctant to take the regular classes, on the other hand the University taken the classes regularly and the complainant together with other students attended the classes as well.
Point for Decision:-
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Both the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion. Ld. Lawyer for the OP submitted that the case is not maintainable as the students are not Consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant referred a decision of Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No-3911 of 2003 where in it has been held that “Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 5/-
C. C. Case No.-600/2014
- :: 5 :: -
situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.” Ld. Lawyer for the OP relied on decision reported in view of the judgment of this court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur wherein “this court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service; therefore, in matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
After considering the materials on record it appears that it is not the regular course of education and complainant applied to directorate of distance education for NGO Management which is a professional course in our view. We are of the view that this category of course does not for within the preview of education. Though the OP has stated its written version that the complainant did not seat in the examination of her own choice inspite of repeated intimation by the University but OP has failed to prove such intimation by any cogent evidence.
As for as deficiency in administrative functions is concern, the students have been treated as consumers and have been given reliefs in case of (i) not holding the schedule examination in due time as it has been notified/stated/declared in the Prospectus-2011 under the heading of examination point a) of OP ii) not providing the study materials in full even after receiving the full cost/charges of study materials from respective students iii) not holding classes as per module within scheduled period iv) not providing guidance by any faculty members for field work as well as for projects work assignment, and/or for v) late declaration of results, wrong dispatch of role numbers, error in mark-sheets etc. Also in one of the cases, classes were not started after the University received fee fort less number of students (As it was not viable to run the course). The University was directed to refund the amount with cost-(Director, Mahatma Gandhi University V. Gopalkumar 1999(1) CPC 292).
The complainant confirms that, the Directorate of Distance Education, of Rabindra Bharati University i.e. the OP had never any urge to hold the Examination of students not only within the notified time as they cleared mentioned it in the prospectus but also they totally failed to complete the course study even after taking the total course fee at time.
However, she never and ever received a phone call from the University until she lodged a complaint in the office the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice, Salt Lake Regional Office, Purta Bhavan, Kolkata-700091 on 13.08.2014.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 6/-
C. C. Case No.-600/2014
- :: 6 :: -
The OP proves its deficiency in rendering its Administrative Services to the Students and by which they not only spoiled some important time from the life of the student but also put a hindrance to excel in the career of the complainant.
Considering the materials on record we are of the view that the “NGO Management Course” does not fall within the purview of ‘Education’. In this case we think that, when the OP has received the money from the complainant and carelessly dealt with them as it was a distance procedure, OP is held to be deficient of service and complainant is entitled to get refund of money and also compensation.
Hence
It is ordered,
that the complaint and same be allowed on contest against the OP.
OP is directed to pay Rs 15, 000/- to the complainant along with interest of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the case till final payment within one month from the date of this order.
OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs 15, 000/- and Rs 5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which OP shall have to pay sum of Rs 100/- per day from the date of this order till it realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the OP in this State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
