Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member
The Ld. Advocate for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent on repeated calls. It is now 1 pm.
Being aggrieved by the and dissatisfied with the judgment / order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata Unit-II in CC No., 288 2017 allowing the case on contest against the opposite party No. 1 an ex parte against with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- and dismissing the complaint against Op No.4 and also directing the OP Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund Rs. 1,73,100/- within 45 days from the date of the order along with the litigation cost, the appellant /OP no 1 preferred this appeal.
In the impugned judgement the OP no 1 to 3 were directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant as compensation for loss of year. And they were also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to that forum as punitive damage for unfair trade practice.
It will not be out of place to mention the Ld. Forum below passed the judgement after considering the evidence abused by the both sides.
The point for decision is that whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality.
The facts of the case is in short like that the respondent/ complainant no 1 took admission in M.Sc ( Fashion Technology and designing course) for 2 years during the session April / May 2015 onwards and paid the entire course fee of Rs 1,73,100/- to OP no 1 and OP no 2 and they issued money receipts. The OP no 1 to 3 declined to furnish any information regarding affiliation of the course under OP 4 (University Grants Commission). On completion of 3rd Semester the OP no. 1, Global Institute of Fashion Technology suspended the classes of 4th year. The OP No. 3 Karnataka “State Open university issued mark-sheet of 3rd semester after 8 months. The OP No. 4 vide UGC (D.Me-B.Tech) Edu.1.2015 dated 11.3.2015 declared that “No university institution deemed to be university. The institution should offer diploma bachelors and masters level programme in engineering and technology other than MBA and MCA till the finalisation of UGC( open and distant learning) regulation 2014 or notification of relevant regulations by an independent regulatory established by Central Government to deal with ODL education in higher education system in the country whichever is earlier.”
The further case of the complainant is that the OP no 4 vide letter dated 13.01.2016 declined the request of OP no. 3 to consider the renewal of reorganisation of the course for the academic year 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Expert Committee visited the OP 3 university and did not recommend the recognition of the old programme for the year 2015-16. The OP no 3 vide notification dt. 1.07.2015 informed all their study centres to withdraw all the programmes by collaborative institution of OP 3 Karnataka state open university outside the territory of Karnataka with immediate effect. The complainant vide letter dt. 19.04.2017 requested the OP no 1 to 3 for refund of the course fee. The OP nos. 1 and 2 vide letter dt. 27.05.2017 avoided their responsibility regarding non completion of the course. The OP no 3 also replied in his letter to the complainant avoided their responsibility regarding non affiliation of the course from OP no 4. So the complainant filed the case claiming refund of Rs 1,73,100/- along with compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs for harassment, mental agony and litigation costs from the OPs.
The OP no 1 contested the case by filing the written version contending inter-alia that the answering OP is the study Centre of Pan India Education which is a collaborative institute of OP 3 Karnataka State Open University. The OP no 1 was conducting certain courses as offered by the OP no 3. The OP no 3 granted approval to the answering OP as its study centre and also authorised to admit and register the students under OP no. 3 vide their letter dt.28.11.2013 16.01.2014. The OP no 3 had also executed a MOU and also issued a certificate in favour of Pan India Education approving the answering OP as its study centre as per clause 4 of the MOU dated 12.08.2014 the answering OP and OP no 2 were to continue the said course for a period of 5 years. Accordingly the answering OP has started to admit students in different courses and a part of the fees were deposited to OP no 3 for registration of students. The op no 4 vide notification no. UGC/DEB/8/KSOU/1/2015 dated 16.06.2015 had discontinued the recognition of the academic programmes conducted by the OP 3. The police authority also investigated the incident and clean cheated the answering OP. The OP no. 1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
The OP nos. 2 & 3 did not contest the case. So, the case proceeded ex parte against them.
It appears from page 4 of the impugned judgment at last but para 1 “the OP 4 UGC vide its public notice dated 11.03.2015 on professional courses in Engineering and Technology through distant mode stipulated that no university institution deemed to university of that institution should offer diploma, bachelor and master level programme in Engineering and Technology other than MCA and MBA till the finalisation of UGC (ODL) Regulations, 2014.
In impugned judgement decision of Calcutta high court dated 19.05.2017 in the case of Ashoke kumar Nandy vs Union of India was referred. In the aforesaid order the Hon’ble court directed the respondent to refund the fees if any collected from the students during the first year of the course which commenced from the academic year 2016-17.
In the present case the complainant continued the studies of the course for 2 years. So this decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In support of his contention the ld advocate referred to a decision of Hon’ble national commission in the case of Manu Solanki vs Vinayak mission university reported in 2020 C.P.R. February page 210.
In this context the Ld. Advocate for the appellant referred to para 50 and 51 of the aforesaid decision at page 230. The para 50 and para 51 of the aforesaid decision run as follows: “50. The main purpose and objective of NCVET is to recognise and regulate and assess the skill related service regulators. It is clarified that even if there is any defect/deficiency / unfair trade practice in the services offered by private bodies in offering these courses and are not regulated and do not confer any Degree or Diploma recognised by any Approved Authority do fall within the ambit of definition of ‘Educational Institutions’ and hence the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the same.
51. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. Except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, not be covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.
Considering the factual scenario of the case along with the position of law cited above we are of the view the appellant / OP no. 1 does not fall within the ambit of definition of “Educational Institution” and hence the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the case as per para 50 of the said judgment.
So, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it requires to be set aside.
Accordingly, in view of the above observation, the appeal being no.806/2019 is allowed ex parte. The impugned order is set aside. In consequence the CC/288/2017 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.
Order of stay, if there is any, stands vacated.
Let a copy of this order be sent to Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata, Unit –II.
Joint Registrar of this Commission is requested to do the needful in this regard.
