JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

The petitioner, which is an autonomous institute affiliated to Mangalore University issued advertisement inviting applications for admission to M.S. (Software Technology) Course of the institute. Out of 11 complainants/respondents before this Commission, 10 took admission in the year 2009 and they were to complete their course in the year 2012. One complainant took admission in the year 2010 and he was to complete his course in the year 2013. The complainants, however, were awarded Degree in M.Sc. (Software Technology) by Mangalore University. Being aggrieved on account of M.Sc. (Software Technology) and not M.S. (Software Technology) Degree having been granted to them, the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints, seeking refund of the amount which they had paid to the petitioner institute alongwith compensation etc.

2.      The complaints were resisted by the petitioner which admitted  the admission given to the complainant but claimed that they were seeking to change the nomenclature of the course from M.Sc. (Software Technology) to M.S. (Software Technology) and had applied to the university for approval of the change of nomenclature. The application for change of the nomenclature from M.Sc. (Software Technology) to M.S. (Software Technology) is stated to have been submitted only in the year 2011 after admission had already been taken by the complainants on the strength of the advertisement whereby the applications were invited for admission to M.S. Communication course.

3.      The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaints, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. The said appeals having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Commission.

4.      The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Praveen Kumar who is one of the complainants in these matters and also represents the other complainants submits that these revision petitions may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Commission in RP/3803/2014 - Principal, St. Aloysius College Vs. Harsharaj Gatty and other connected matters decided on 09.12.2015 which to the extent, it is relevant, reads as under:-

“5.      It is an admitted position that the Mangalore University has since approved the course in which the complainants were admitted on 31.01.2013 with retrospective effect and degree certificates have accordingly been issued to the complainants.  Therefore, the only question which requires our consideration in these petitions is as to whether despite having been issued the degrees, though late, the complainants are entitled to any compensation from the petitioner and if so, what would be fair compensation to be granted to them.

6.      During the course of hearing, the Prospectus on the basis of which admissions were taken by the complainants were produced before us and the authenticity of the aforesaid documents was not disputed.  It was expressly stated in the Prospectus that degree shall be awarded by the University.   It would therefore be difficult to dispute that the complainants had taken admission in the belief that on successful completion of the course, the University degree will be awarded to them.  The said belief came to be formed on the basis of the representation made in the Prospectus.  Admittedly, the petitioner had not taken approval of the University to start the aforesaid course before admitting students in the Academic Year 2008-09 and 2009-10.  Though, it had applied to the University way back on 23.2.2008 for according approval inter-alia to MS (Communications) Course, the said approval had actually not been granted before the students were admitted in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10.

9.      The next question which arises for our consideration in this case is as to whether the compensation awarded to the complainants was reasonable or it was on the higher side.  It is not in dispute that even before starting the course in which admission was taken by the complainants, the petitioner had already applied to the university, seeking its approval to the said course.  It is also an admitted position that the application of the petitioner college for grant of the requisite approval was never rejected by the university.  It is also not in dispute that the course in which admission was taken by the complainants was approved not only by the college authorities but also by the Academic Council of the university.  There is no material on record to show that the said course did not conform to the norms prescribed by the university and / or UGC as regards curriculum, course hours, faculty etc.  Therefore, we see no reason to reject the case of the petitioner college that they had complied with the prescribed norms of the university and UGC in this regard.  We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the college could not have anticipated that despite the course sought to be started by it conform to the prescribed norms and requisite standards, the approval from the university will not be forthcoming in time.  This is more so when even the Academic Council of the University had approved the said course.  The very fact that on 31.1.2013, the university approved the course clearly shows that the petitioner college had confirmed to the requirement of the prescribed norms and standards.  Presumably, it is for this reason that the university eventually made the approval retrospective, resulting in the complainants getting the requisite degrees of the university though after delay of 2-3 years.

10.    Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the fora below to the complainants is on the higher side.  We therefore, modify the order passed by the foras below by directing the petitioner to refund only the principal amount paid to it by the complainants within four weeks from today, along with Rs.2500/- as the cost of litigation to them.  If the aforesaid payment is made within four weeks from today, it shall not carry any interest.  However, in case of failure of the petitioner to make payment, in terms of this order, within four weeks from today, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of the payment.

5.      In view of the statements made by Mr. Praveen Kumar and the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revision petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

The petitioner shall refund the principal amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainants within four weeks from today alongwith cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2500/- in each case. If the payment is made within four weeks from today, it shall not carry any interest. If, however, the payment is not made within four weeks from today, it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment.