STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 431 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 26.12.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 09.01.2013 |
Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Sector 32C, Chandigarh through its Director.
……Appellant/Opposite Party.
Versus
Sh. Sourabh Sihag S/o Sh. Rajinder Sihag, R/o VPO Taza Patti, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur, Punjab.
....Respondent/Complainant.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant.
First Appeal No. | : | 432 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 26.12.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 09.01.2013 |
Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Sector 32C, Chandigarh through its Director.
……Appellant/Opposite Party.
Versus
Sh. Ankur son of Sh. Tarsem Lal, resident of House No.35, Master Colony, Dinanagar, Distt. Gurdaspur.
....Respondent/Complainant.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing Nos.431 and 432 both of 2012, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party, against the common order dated 31.10.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it allowed the two complaints bearing Nos.21/2012 and 39/2012 filed by the respondents (complainants), respectively, qua the appellant/Opposite Party and directed it as under: -
“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 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.”
2. Since, the facts involved in both the complaints are totally identical, the same are being culled from Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2012 - Sourabh Sihag Vs. Regional Institute of Cooperative Management.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant (Sh. Sourabh Sihag), took admission in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agribusiness) run by the Opposite Party – Institute, after going through its prospectus. It was stated that, in the prospectus, the Opposite Party had mentioned that the said diploma was recognized by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) as equivalent to MBA degree. It was further stated that the complainant paid a fee of Rs.87,675/- for the said diploma course to the Opposite Party. It was further stated that later on, the complainant came to know that the said diploma course, was not recognized by the AIU as equivalent to MBA degree, and accordingly, he decided not to continue with the course. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested for cancellation of his admission and refund of fee deposited by him, but to no avail. It was further stated that the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), praying for necessary action against the Opposite Party, was filed.
4. The Opposite Party, in its written version, stated that the complainant took admission, with it, in the PGDM course. It was stated that its diploma, in Agri Business was approved and recognized by the AICTE. It was further stated that the Opposite Party had applied for recognition of the same by the AIU as equivalent to MBA degree, as it fulfilled all the conditions for the same and had also deposited the fee in this regard. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was quite hopeful of getting the approval as VAMNICOM, which was also working under the administrative control of NCCT, New Delhi (like the Opposite Party), was accorded approval. It was further stated that somehow the things got delayed and the application moved by the Opposite Party, was still pending decision of AIU. It was further stated 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 was further stated that the prospectus was published without correction and there was no malafide intention to mislead anyone, and that the whole position was explained to the complainant, as well as other trainees. It was further stated that, as the complainant, left the course midway, so he was not entitled to the refund of tuition fee, paid by him. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither any deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaints, vide a common order, as sated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/Opposite Party, has filed the instant appeals.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite party submitted that the application of the appellant/Opposite Party for according recognition by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Govt. of India, was somehow delayed and during this period, expecting approval, the Opposite Party prepared its Draft Prospectus wherein, the PGDM was shown to be recognized by AICTE, and Association of Indian Universities (AIU) as equivalent to MBA Degree. He further submitted that the Prospectus, which was published, was without correction and there was no malafide intention to mislead anyone, and that the whole position was explained to the complainant, as also to other trainees. He further submitted that as the respondent/complainant had left the course midway, so he was not entitled to the refund of tuition fee, paid by him. The Counsel, therefore, prayed that the appeals be accepted and the impugned order, be set aside.
10. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant took admission with the appellant/Opposite Party, in the Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Agri Business) and paid fee of Rs.87,675/-. He subsequently, left the course and sought refund of his fee, as the PGDM was not recognized by Association of Indian Universities (AIU), as equivalent to M.B.A. Degree. The Prospectus of the Opposite Party, placed on record, by the respondent/complainant, is at running Page 45 of the complaint file. In this Prospectus, at running Page 51, of the District Forum’s file, it was clearly mentioned that “The PGDM has been recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Govt. of India and recognized by Association of Indian Universities, as equivalent to M.B.A. Degree”, whereas in the written statement, filed before the District Forum, the Opposite Party had fairly admitted this fact that there was no recognition to the PGDM by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU), as equivalent to M.B.A. Degree, for the Batch 2011-2013, and, in fact, it had applied for the same, which was somehow delayed. Certainly, it is a case of misrepresentation by the appellant/Opposite Party, and, therefore, the respondent/ complainant was having every right to get his admission cancelled and seek refund of fee. In this view of the matter, in our considered view, the District Forum was right in holding that the appellant/Opposite Party indulged into unfair trade practice, by putting the career of the students, like the respondent/ complainant, at stake.
11. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
12. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
13. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals bearing Nos.431/2012 and 432/2012, filed by the appellant/ Opposite Party, are dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is upheld.
14. Certified copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No.432 of 2012.
15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
9th January, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.431 of 2012)
Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant.
Dated the 9th day of January 2013.
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal and appeal No.432 of 2012, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party, have been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 432 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 26.12.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 09.01.2013 |
Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Sector 32C, Chandigarh through its Director.
……Appellant/Opposite Party.
Versus
Sh. Ankur son of Sh. Tarsem Lal, resident of House No.35, Master Colony, Dinanagar, Distt. Gurdaspur.
....Respondent/Complainant.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
1. For orders, see the orders passed in First Appeal No.431 of 2012 titled “Regional Institute of Cooperative Management Vs. Sh. Sourabh Sihag”, vide which this appeal has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs.
2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced.
9th January, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Ad
