DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sh. Rajeshwar Singh son of Sh. Balraj Singh Batyal resident of House No.1665 (1^st Floor), Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

1. Director/Coordinator, Regional Institute of Distance Education, SCO No.84 (FF), Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.
2.  Chairman/Principal, Regional Institute of Distance Education, SCO No.84 (FF), Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.
3. Vice Chancellor, Vinayaka Mission University, Sankari Main Road (NH-47), Ariyanoor, Salem – 636308, Tamilnadu (India).
4. Vinayaka Mission University, Sankari Main Road (NH-47), Ariyanoor, Salem – 636308, Tamilnadu (India) through its Registrar.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:       MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                 PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU      MEMBER

Argued By:     Sh. Rajeshwar Singh, complainant in person.

                        OPs No.1 and 2 already exparte.

                        Sh. Sachin Sharma, Advocate for OPs No.3 and 4.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

                Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short), on the grounds that the complainant who is a graduate self employed man and in order to improve his educational qualification while being on the job applied for an M.B.A. Execute HR 1 year course with OPs No.1 and 2 who are the authorized centers for OPs No.3 and 4. OPs No.3 and 4 offered various programmes in the field of Art, Medicine, Dentistry, Para Medical Sciences, Homeopathy, Engineering, Management Sciences etc. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.4,000/- vide receipt No.1325 and 1336 dated 14.7.2009 and 16.07.2009 respectively. The same are annexed as Annexures P-2 and P-3.

                That in the month of November 2009, the complainant was informed by an employee of the Institute OPs No.1 and 2 that as one year course of M.BA. Executive (HR) was not approved as a minimum gap of 5 years after Graduation was required for the same.  It is alleged that at the time of receiving the fees, no such information was made available to the complainant. At the same time, when the complainant demanded his refund of the fees deposited with OPs No.1 and 2, he was advised by the employees of OPs No.1 and 2 that he can avail the option of an MBA (HR) Course for 2 years by paying an additional amount of Rs.7,000/- as the fees for this course was Rs.26,000/-. Believing the suggestion, the complainant deposited Rs.6,000/- vide receipt No.2720 dated 26.5.2010. The same is annexed as Annexure P-4 and it was mentioned as the fee for 2^nd year.

                Thereafter, the complainant was asked to deposit examination fee of Rs.1,400/- + Rs.1,400/- for each year and Rs.1,000/- the remaining amount of the course fee. The same was deposited vide receipt No.3020 dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P-5). As such, the complainant deposited a total amount of Rs.28,800/- with OPs No.1 and 2 for MBA (HR) 2 Years Course.

                The complainant appeared in the examination held in January 2010 for 1^st Year vide registered no.198469/ 204031090903 (New) at Panjab College of Education, SCO No.84/2, Sector 38C, Chandigarh. A copy of Hall Ticket is attached as Annexure P-6. That in the month of April 2010, the complainant was informed by one Mr. Vivek Thakur employee of OPs No.1 and 2 that he has qualified in the 1^st Year Examination by getting 59% marks. When the complainant demanded the DMC by personally visiting the centre of OPs No.1 and 2, he was assured that the same would be made available to him through post as soon as it is received from OPs No.3 and 4. Thereafter, the complainant made repeated visits to OPs No.1 and 2 but without any success. It is also mentioned  that Examination for 2^nd Year was to be held between December 2010 to January 2011 and as such, the complainant  could not avail the opportunity to appear as he was not in possession of the DMC of 1^st Year. The complainant declares that it was disclosed to him by Mr. Vivek Thakur the employee of OPs No.1 and 2 that intimation for 2^nd Year Examination could not be issued to him due to the negligence of employees of OPs No.1 and 2. Thereafter, the complainant made repeated requests and even emailed OPs No.1 and 2 with his request. The same is annexed as Annexure P-7.

                Meanwhile, the complainant was offered an employment as Registry Processing Clerk at the office of Consulate General of Canada, SCO No.54-56, Sector 17A, Chandigarh at the salary of Rs.20,904/- per month, which was to expire on 30.6.2011. The complainant further states that in the absence of the required degree for which he had paid his hard earned money, would be of no use once he is rendered unemployed after the present employment. The complainant thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs pray for refund of Rs.28,800/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of payment till it is paid. The complainant has further demanded a compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony suffered by him due to the loss of two precious years besides Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.

                OPs No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.10.2011 as they refused to accept the summons.

                OPs No.3 and 4 have contested the claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant not being a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reason being that OPs No.3 and 4 is a statutory body and as such, there is no commercial function involved in holding of examination. There is also no hiring or availing of any services from the University for any consideration and the same has been settled by law of the land. OPs No.3 and 4 further state that as they do not have any office in the territory of this Forum and as such, this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said complaint. It is also mentioned that as the complainant has alleged fraud and misappropriation and as such, leveling of such allegations attract criminal proceedings. Hence, the Forum is not the appropriate authority to adjudicate the matter, which required detailed and exhaustive evidence and the same is not possible in the summary procedure followed by the Consumer Fora.

                On merits, OPs No.3 and 4 have reiterated their contentions as raised in their preliminary objections. It is also mentioned by OPs No.3 and 4 that the entire complaint of the complainant has alleged the role of OPs No.1 and 2 and at no point of time, OPs No.3 and 4 have either been intimated or involved while dealing with OPs No.1 and 2 and as such, the allegations are to be addressed and replied by OPs No.1 and 2 and not by the answering OPs. It is further stated that the entire complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous and based on conjectures and surmises, which deserves no consideration. OPs No.3 and 4 finally citing the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled Maharshi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur reported as 2010 (4) R.C.R (Civil) 89 pray for the dismissed of the present complaint against them.

                Parties led their respective evidences.

                Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OPs, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions:-

(i)             As OPs No.1 and 2 have failed to make an appearance and were proceeded against exparte, also the main grievance of the complainant is against them as he has prayed for deficiency in service against them and sought relief of refund of the fee deposited with them. In the absence of any defense of OPs Nol.1 and 2, the present complaint succeeds against them.

(ii)            As OPs No.3 and 4 have come forward to reply to the allegations of the complainant along with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, we do not find any merit to proceed against them as the complainant too has not been able to establish the fact whether what part of his fee paid to OPs No.1 and 2 was forwarded to OPs No.3 and 4 as such, to attract the observations necessary for the consideration to qualify as a consumer. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed qua OPs No.3 and 4.

(iii)           As the allegations with regard to the misplacement of the DMC of the complainant as well as the non supply of information with regard to the 2^nd Year Examination that was to be held in December 2010, against the OPs No1 and 2 have gone unrebutted. We have no other alternative but to believe the contentions of the complainant as the same are fortified by an affidavit filed along with the present complaint. Hence, the deficiency in service is writ large against OPs No.1 and 2.

                In the light of the above observations, we feel that the present complaint succeeds and we direct the OPs No.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.28,800/-. The OPs No.1 and 2 are also saddled with the consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- along with Rs7,000/- as litigation expenses.              

                The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, OPs No.1 and 2 shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount Rs.43,800/- except the litigation expenses.

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

Announced

12^th December, 2011.                                                                       

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)