DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Pallawi Singh daughter of Dr.Ashok Kumar Singh, resident of C/o Dr. Ramasharya Singh, D/5 Surya Vihar, Phase-II, Ashiana, Patna, Bihar.

              ---Complainant

Vs.

Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Chandigarh (an Institution of National Council for Cooperative Training, New Delhi), Sector 32-C, Chandigarh, through its Director.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainant.

            Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for Opposite Party.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          By this common order, we are disposing of two connected Consumer Complaint cases, detailed below, as both the complaint cases are having same controversy as well as similar question of facts and law.

2.          The facts are being taken from the present Complaint Case No. 632 of 2012 – Pallawi Singh vs. Regional Institute of Cooperative Manager, Chandigarh.

3.          Ms. Pallawi Singh had taken admission with the Opposite Party for pursuing 02 years full time residential Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM) 2010-2012 Batch. The entry to the said course was through an entrance test. As per the Prospectus published by the Opposite Party the PGDM was recognized by the All Indian Council of Technical Education (AICET), as well as recognized by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) as equivalent to MBA Degree. 100% job placement was guaranteed to the students after completion of the course. A list of recruiters was also given in the Prospectus to attract students (Prospectus Annexure C-1 and letter Annexure C-2). It was also mentioned in the Prospectus that the Institute is funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

          The Complainant completed 02 years of study but when she received the final certificate, Ministry of Agriculture was not written on it. Also, there was no mention of recognition by AIU on the certificate. The Complainant has stated that she spent a total sum of Rs.4,53,500/- on the course and passed it with 79% marks (Mark Sheet Annexure C-11 and Certificate Annexure C-12).

          The Complainant has alleged that as the Degree awarded by the Opposite Party is not equivalent to MBA Degree as mentioned in the Prospectus, the Complainant cannot enroll herself in any course of further study i.e. Ph.D course because the University Grants Commission (UGC) allows admission only if the course is AIU certified (Annexure C-13). The Complainant has thus alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the Opposite Party due to above shortcomings. The Complainant has further alleged that after grant of certificate there was no campus placement and the Complainant had to resort to her own remedies to find a job.    

          The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party is making a fool of the public by giving misleading advertisements. Students have joined it by clearing national level examination (VAMNICOM, MAT, CAT). Alleging that the Opposite Party has ruined the career of the students, as well as herself, the Complainant has filed the present complaint with a prayer that the Opposite Party be ordered to refund the total fees paid along with interest, compensation and costs of litigation, besides punitive damages for misleading advertisement.     

4.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

5.          Opposite Party in reply has taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is time barred as the Complainant had taken admission to the Institute in July, 2010. Also, the Complainant had voluntarily taken admission and undergone the entire course and obtained the PGDM degree which is recognized by the AICTE. On the basis of the Diploma, the Complainant also got gainful employment.

          Opposite Party has contended that the Complainant has not shown or proved anywhere that she has suffered due to absence of the equivalence granted by the AIU. The eligibility and admission process to a University MBA course is highly stringent and competitive whereas the admission to the Institute’s course is relatively easy. The Complainant has chosen admission to the PGDM through a relatively easy admission test and the course is duly recognized by the AICTE. Also the Complainant has not made the Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh (RICM) a party to the Complainant which is establish by the National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT) which is a training wing of the National Cooperative Union of India (NCUI). The Opposite Party is working under the administrative control of the NCCT which is fully funded by the Government of India and established by NCUI. The Complainant cannot be a consumer of the Opposite Party as grant of degrees and diploma by Universities and Institutes are outside the purview of the Act.

          Opposite Party has stated that Vainkunth Mehta National Institute of Cooperative Management (VAMNICOM) Pune, besides other Institutes are also working under the control of the NCCT. PDGM of VAMNICOM, Pune is approved by AICTE. However, somehow things have got delayed and the application of the Opposite Party for grant of AIU recognition is still pending decision. The approval is expected to be accorded in the near future. This position was explained to the Complainant as well as other Trainees. Hence the Complainant is not entitled to refund of fees. The course given by the Opposite Party is not worthless as it has the requisite technical approvals and recognitions.

          On merits, Opposite Party has denied all the allegations of the Complainant and has maintained that no verbal assurance was given to the Complainant for job guarantee. The contentions taken in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. Opposite Party has therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.          The Complainant filed rejoinder/ rebuttal by way of affidavit wherein all the contentions of the Opposite Party were denied. It was stated that there was no notice on the notice board by the Opposite Party as per Annexure OP-1/1. It was stated in the prospectus that the PGDM had been granted equivalence to MBA degree by AIU. Also that Opposite Party had committed 100% placement of all its PGDM students with reputed companies.

          The Complainant has alleged that bare perusal of the certificate issued by the Opposite Party reflect that it is Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agri. Business) and is only recognized by the AICTE and not recognized by AIU as equivalent to MBA degree, meaning thereby that it was only a Post Graduate Diploma. The letters placed on record by the Opposite Party are only with an object to mislead this Forum as Annexure OP-1/2 was not written by the Opposite Party but by VAMNICOM. The story set-up by the Opposite Party that they have already applied to AIU New Delhi for extension of MBA equivalence status to PGDM program is totally belied from Annexure C-14 which is a proforma for consideration of equivalence of two years Full time PGDM program with MBA degree. Condition 4(d) reflects that in order to take AIU recognition, the Opposite Party was to give list of number of students passed out (year wise last three years). The batch of the Complainant is the third batch of PGDM Agri. Business launched by the Opposite Party and hence the Opposite Party did not have any occasion for applying to AIU for extension of MBA equivalence status before 06.07.2012 i.e. Annexure C-12. Hence the Opposite Party is misleading this Forum by using the word extension when actually even the recognition was not granted to it at any point of time. The Complainant has been able to get a job on her own merit, but the same is not to her satisfaction as the course was not AIU recognized. Further, there was no campus placement by the Opposite Party as already alleged. The contention of the Opposite Party that the Complainant is not a consumer has been contested. The Complainant has therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed as prayed for. 

7.          During the course of proceedings, the Opposite Party filed an application for cross-examination of the Complainant by way of interrogatories. The application was opposed by the Complainant. The Complainant also filed an affidavit dated 25.05.2013 giving details of her previous employment. As the material demanded by the Opposite Party was placed on record, the application was disposed off vide order dated 27.05.2013. 

          The Opposite Party preferred another application for impleading NCUI as a party which was also opposed by the Complainant. The Complainant in her reply stated that she did not wish to implead NCUI as party as she had taken admission with the Opposite Party and did not have any direct connection with NCUI. In view of this, the application was dismissed on 11.06.2013.

8.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

9.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

10.        The first contention of the Opposite Party is that the complaint is time barred as the Complainant has taken admission with the Opposite Party in 2010. To our mind, as the grievance of the Complainant has started only on the date she has received the certificate dated 06^th July, 2012, which does not contain either recognition by AIU or mention of Ministry of Agriculture. It is only receipt of this certificate that she has realized that two years have been spent for an education which is not equivalent to an MBA and also does not entitle her for higher education.  

11.        The allegations of the Complainant are with regard to non-recognition of Opposite Party with the AIU as advertised by it due to which the Complainant had chosen to take admission in the Institute of the Opposite Party. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the Prospectus (2010-2012 Batch). At running Pg. 7 of the said Prospectus, it is given as under:-

“The PGDM has been recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Government of India and recognized by Association of Indian Universities as equivalent to M.B.A. degree.”

          The Certificate issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant is at Annexure C-12. A perusal of the said Certificate shows that the Institute of the Opposite Party is recognized by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Min. of HRD, Govt. of India). So the allegations of the Complainant about misrepresentation by the Opposite Party in offering admission stand fortified by perusal of the Certificate issued by the Opposite Party.

12.        It is evident that the Certificate awarded by the Opposite Party is for Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agri. Business) and not a Degree equivalent to MBA. Hence, if at any time, the Complainant wishes to go for higher studies she would not be eligible for the same because University Grants Commission allows the same only if the course is AIU certified which is not in the present case. Annexure C-13 is the conditions of eligibility given by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for students wishing for higher studies. Condition No.vi of this annexure reads as under:-

“Candidates with post-graduate diploma/ certificate course(s) or foreign degree/ diploma should in their own interest, ascertain the equivalence of their course(s) with Master’s degree of recognized Indian Universities from Association of India Universities (AIU), New Delhi. (www.aiuweb.org)”

          As per aforesaid condition, it is evident that the Complainant cannot pursue her higher education on the basis of the certificate issued to her by the Opposite Party.

13.        Annexure C-2 is a letter dated 08.06.2010 issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. Relevant extract of which reads as under:-

“…………..Institute is committed to cent per cent placement of al its PGDM students in good and reputed companies. The accommodation is provided on sharing basis in the hostel of the Institute.”

          The Complainant has obviously chosen to take admission with the Opposite Party being attracted by this offer. The marks sheet of the Complainant is also on record which shows her to be a meritorious student having secured 79% marks.

14.        Annexure C-14 is a proforma for consideration of Equivalence of two year full time PGDM Programme with MBA Degree by the Association of Indian Universities: New Delhi (AIU). Condition No.4(d) of the said proforma reads as under:-

“4.  Criteria being followed for:

x    xxx        xxx        xxx

d.   Number of students passed out (Year wise last three years).”

          The Institute commenced in 2008 and the Complainant’s batch was the third batch. Hence, it was not possible for the Opposite Party to have even applied to the AIU for recognition let alone extension as claimed by them, since they were not eligible till 03 years were over. 

15.        Besides other communications, the Opposite Party has attached Annexure OP-1/1, to substantiate their case, which is stated to be a notice to the students, which reads as under:-

To whomsoever it may concern

This is to inform that the prospectus contains an inadvertent mistake about PGDM (Agribusiness) course having been granted equivalence to MBA Degree by the AIU.

Please note that at present the said recognition by AIU is not available.

Sd/-

Director

This may be put on the Notice Board for two months.

Sd/-

Director

          Learned counsel for the Complainant contended that there was no such notice on the notice board by the Opposite Party.

          Annexure OP-1/2 placed on record by the Opposite Party has the following written:-

“(2) The Institute has applied to AIU, New Delhi for the extension of MBA equivalence status to this PGDM programme, which is under their consideration.”

          Annexure OP-1/3 relates to the Vaikunth Mehta National Institute of Cooperative Management (VAMNICOM) and hence not relevant in the present case.

16.        In view of foregoings, there is no doubt in our mind that Opposite Party had indulged in unfair trade practice by offering admission to students on false claims and affiliations and need to be penalized for the harassment caused to the students as well as time lost in pursing their course with the Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for refund of the entire fees along with interest. As the Complainant has completed her course with the Opposite Party, we do not deem it appropriate that refund of fees be ordered. Moreover, there is no contention about any deficiency in the quality of education provided; or that classes have not been held or even that examinations have not been held. However, the Opposite Party is definitely liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

17.        The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital Versus Bhupesh Khurana and Others, reported as 2009 (4) SCC 484 had held the Opposite Party liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and accorded compensation to the Complainants. The relevant portions of the judgment are as under:-  

34.  The Commission after hearing the learned counsel for the parties rightly came to the conclusion as under: -

“To our mind, the contention is unfounded. Reading the advertisement and prospectus as a whole, there is no manner of doubt that the impression given was that the College was affiliated with the Magadh University and was recognized by the Dental Council of India. If the College has not been affiliated and recognized, there was no occasion in admitting the students and wasting their valuable academic years. Moreover, the opposite parties have been admitting the students right from the year 1991-92 upto the year 1995 on this representation that the College was affiliated and recognized by the Dental Council of India. It cannot be denied that without affiliation to the Magadh University and recognition granted by the V, the so-called dental degree of BDS is just a useless piece of paper. The representation given in the advertisement that the College was under Magadh University and by the Dental Council of India could be taken by a common person to mean that the college had been given recognition by the Dental Council of India and was affiliated to the Magadh University.”

35.  The Commission also held that this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board held as under (AIR para 118 at p.583): (SCC P.265, para 95):-

“95……….In the case of the University or an educational institution, the nature of the activity is, ex hypothesi, education which is a service to the community. Ergo, the University is an industry.”  (emphasis in original)

The Commission further held as under:

“Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of `service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. The complainants had hired the services of the respondent for consideration so they are consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.”

36. The Commission rightly came to the conclusion that this was a case of total misrepresentation on behalf of the institute which tantamounts to unfair trade practice. The respondents were admitted to the BDS Course for receiving education for consideration by the appellant college which was neither affiliated nor recognized for imparting education. This clearly falls within the purview of deficiency as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, which defines the `deficiency' as under:

“2.(1)(g)`Deficiency' means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.

     Therefore, the Commission rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the institute and the claimants respondents are entitled to claim the relief as prayed in the plaint. The appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.”

18.        Relying on the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as the discussion above pointing out the discrepancies by the Opposite Party, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This amount be paid by the Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which this amount will carry an interest of 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till the date of payment.   

19.        The Opposite Parties shall also pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant towards costs of litigation.

20.        Similar directions are passed in the other Consumer Complaint No.06 of 2013 – Shitanshu Ranjan Versus Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Chandigarh. 

21.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

05^th July, 2013                            

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”                                                                                                                        

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Shitanshu Ranjan son of Sh. H.M. Sharma, At Jai Prabha Nagar, P.O. Purabsarai, District Munger (Bihar) – 811201.

              ---Complainant

Vs.

Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Chandigarh Sector 32-C, Chandigarh, through its Director Dr. Niraj Pasricha.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Complainant in person.

           Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for Opposite Party.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          For the reasons stated in the order of even date passed by this Forum in Complaint Case No.632 of 2012 – Pallawi Singh Vs. Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Chandigarh, this complaint is accepted. A copy of that order is placed on the record, which shall be deemed to form a part of this order.

2.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

05^th July, 2013                                  Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”