CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.611/2008

MS. NANDANI SHARMA                                                                                

D/O SH. H.S. SHARMA

R/O AN-599, SUNDAY MARKET ROAD,

PANDIT MOHALLA,

VILLAGE & POST OFFICE AYA NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110047

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

VS.

1. RAI UNIVERSITY

A-41, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, (MCIE),

MATHURA ROAD NEW DELHI-110044

2. RAI FOUNDATION

PLOT NO.486/487, UDYOG VIHAR,

PHASE-III, GURGAON, HARYANA

………….. RESPONDENTS

Date of Order: 03.12.2018

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that after passing her 12^th class examination, she decided to pursue technical degree course and accordingly took admission in B-Tech (Bio-Tech) 4-year degree course of OP.  The complainant belongs to a middle class-service class as her father is working with CISF.  Her father took a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from Central Bank of India for her education.  The complainant completed first and second semester of the course and was hopeful to get 4-year degree after completing remaining six semesters.  The complainant was shocked to get the information through teaching staff that in January 2005, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had derecognized the university under which this course was being pursued.  Written circulars were circulated among students for further pursuing of course by taking lateral entry to IASE, a UGC approved Deemed university at Sardarshahar, Rajasthan, which was the distance learning process.  Due to the action of OPs, the two valuable years of the complainant wasted.  She was forced to take admission in B.A. course by suppressing her all good wishes of becoming an engineer.  The complainant has sought refund of the amount of Rs.82,000/- alongwith interest of Rs.19,897/- which is charged by the bank and also sought compensation and litigation expenses.

None appeared for OPs despite service of notice.

It is proved from the unrebutted testimony of the complainant that she was offered 4-years degree course which was derecognized and later on distance learning course was offered which the complainant did not opt for. 

It is significant to note that OPs cannot have distance learning education course.  In fact in case of Prof. Yashpal & Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others – 2005 (5) SCC 420 – the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no university may have any affiliated college or study centre/off campus outside the jurisdiction of State.  Identical view was taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of Guru Nanak Dev Para Medical Institute Vs Salim Mohd.  – 1(2017) CPJ 304 (NC).

It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.82,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.  OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to each complainant .

Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

            Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

    (RITU GARODIA)                        (H.C. SURI)                           (A.S. YADAV)

        MEMBER                                   MEMBER                               PRESIDENT