DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

(1)

Sourabh Sihag son of Shri Rajinder Sihag resident of VPO Taza Patti, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur, Punjab.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party

(2)

Ankur son of Tarsem Lal resident of H.No.35, Master Colony, Dinanagar, Distt. Gurdaspur.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh 160030.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person

                        Sh. Indresh Goel, Adv. for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           By this order we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.

2.                           The facts have been taken out from Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2012-Sourabh Sihag Vs. Regional Institute of Cooperative Management.

3.                           According to Sh. Sourabh Sihag, complainant he took admission in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agribusiness) run by the opposite party institute after going through its prospectus.  It has been pleaded that it was specifically mentioned in the prospectus that the said diploma was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) as equivalent to MBA degree.  He paid fee of Rs.87,675/- for the said diploma course to the opposite party.

                   The case of the complainant is that later on he came to know that the said diploma course has not been recognized by the AIU as equivalent to MBA degree.  It came as a great shock to the complainant as he had taken admission only because of the assertion made in the brochure that the said course is equivalent to the MBA degree.  Accordingly, he decided not to continue with the course.  So, he approached the opposite party and requested for cancellation of his admission and refund of the fee deposited, but to no effect. 

                    In these circumstances, the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) has been filed.

4.                           In the written statement it has been admitted by the opposite party that the complainant took admission with it in the PGDM course.  According to the opposite party its diploma in Agri Business is approved and recognized by the AICTE.  It has been pleaded that it has applied for recognition of the same by the AIU as equivalent to MBA degree because it fulfilled all the conditions for the same and had also deposited the fee in this regard.  According to the opposite party, it is quite hopeful of getting the approval as VAMNICOM, which is also working under the administrative control of NCCT, New Delhi (like the opposite party), was accorded the approval.  However, it has been averred that somehow the things got delayed and its application is still pending decision of AIU.  It has further been averred that as the opposite party was expecting approval to the course, it prepared the draft prospectus on the basis of the prospectus of VAMNICOM.  It has been pleaded that the prospectus was published without correction and there as no malafide intention to mislead anyone and that the whole position was explained to the complainant as well as other trainees.  It has further been pleaded that as the complainant left the course midway, so he is not entitled to refund of tuition fee paid by him.  

                   According to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

5.                           We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant took admission in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agri Business) and paid fee of Rs.87,675/-.  It is also admitted case of the parties that in the brochure it has been specifically mentioned that the PGDM has been recognized by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) as equivalent to MBA degree. 

7.                           The case of the complainant is that he took admission in the PGDM because of the abovesaid declaration made in the brochure and believing it to be true. According to the complainant he wanted a degree which was equivalent to MBA.  However, later on, he came to know that the PGDM course run by the opposite party is not recognized by the AIU as equivalent to MBA degree.  This fact is also admitted by the opposite party in its written statement, though it has been pleaded that an application for approval in this regard has been moved by it and the matter is under process.

8.                           From the above discussion, it is clear that in the brochure it has been clearly mentioned that the PGDM course has been recognized by AIU as equivalent to MBA degree but, in fact, the said course was not recognized by the AIU as equivalent to MBA degree.  In such circumstances, if a student wants to get his admission cancelled and seeks refund of his fee, he is fully entitled to do so.  It is not a case where the complainant is seeking refund of his fee because of some deficiency on the part of the opposite party in providing the services.  Rather the case in hand is of adopting unfair trade practice and thereby putting the careers of the students, like the complainants, at stake.  The opposite party cannot be allowed to take shelter of their application for approval which, according to them, is still pending.  If the opposite party, without having the necessary recognition, still chose to publish in the prospectus that the PGDM run by it was recognized by the AIU as equivalent to MBA degree, then it is bound to face the consequences.  Publication of this fact in the brochure, therefore, amounts to an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

9.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed as under :-

(i)                to refund the fee deposited by the complainant;

(ii)             to pay Rs.25,000/- as penalty for indulging into unfair trade practice.

10.                       Similar directions are passed in the other consumer complaint bearing C.C. No.39 of 2012-Ankur Vs. Regional Institute of Cooperative Management.

11.                       This order be complied with by the opposite party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts shall carry interest @18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit of the fee till actual payment to the complainant.

12.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31.10.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER