Statement of facts of the case as follows:-
The above two student- complainants were lured by an advertisement in the news paper ‘Purulia Darpan’ inserted by S. R. Institute of Technology which offered technical education and is associated and/or tagged with Eastern Institute for Integral Learning Management (EILLM) approved by UGC and Distance Education Council (DEC).
On enquiry the complainants came to know that the fees structure of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering is Rs. 65,000/- which is payable through installments and there is scope of placement in job through campus in the companies viz. Airtel, Simplex, Reliance, TVS, Nokia, Wipro etc.
Being attached by the scheme of the said institution the student-complainants decided to take admission the course of Diploma in Mechanical engineering and for this complainant no. 1 paid Rs. 51,000/- towards registration and tuition fees and complainant no. 2 deposited Rs. 56,000/- on the same heads on different dates (vide Annex 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8, 1/8(i) and 1/9).
Though initially the student-complainants took admission at S.R Institute of Technology but subsequently the institution changed its name at different points of time viz. Spine Institute of Management and Technology and finally allocated the name Spine Institute of Technology & Management against which the case is instituted.
The student-complainants completed 3rd year examination and got the mark sheet on 16/9/2012 issued by the EIILM, University Sikkim. But since then the coordinator of the O.P.-institution did not deliver the certificate of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering issued by the said university.
Being suspicious they wrote UGC and on reply vide No. F4-2/2014 (CPP-1/PU) dated 9th July 2014 the complainant no. 1 came to know that EIILM university is not authorized to open study center/off campus beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the states as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in of case of Prof. Yashpal –vs- State of Chhatisgarh and the university cannot open its center (s) even within the states as per the provision of UGC (Establishment of and maintenance standards in private universities) Regulations,2003 without the approval of UGC (Annex 4).
The complainant no. 1 also submitted application before Distance Education Council for information regarding the course open by EIILM university and in response to that Dy. Director, CPIO of the DEC vide letter no. UGC/DEB/RTI/2014/VOL-190/8272-73 dated 4/7/14 informed that Diploma in Mechanical of EIILM university, Sikkim has never been accorded recognition by erstwhile Distance Education Council (DEC) or Distance Education Bureau (DEB) of UGC for offering programme through distance mode (Annexure 5).
In such situation the complainants lodge complaint to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Purulia Regional Office and on receipt of the notice the coordinator of the O.P. institution promised to refund the amount taken by them within few months but till date they did not pay the same. Finding no other alternative the student complainants filed the instant case for appropriate relief.
The O.P. is contesting the case by filing written objection contending inter-alia that instance case is not maintainable as this institution is franchise holder of the university approved by University Grand Commission (UGC) and Distance Education Bureau (DEB). The O.P. specifically alleges that it has left the work after 2012 on intervention of the UGC who asked to close all the off share centre of EIILM university but the student complainants took admission in the year 2011. In such situation the O.P. prays for the dismissal of the case.
Now the questions are whether the student complainants are entitled to relief as prayed for and is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
Decision with reason
It is admitted that the Student-complainants (no. 1 and 2) took admission in the O.P.- Institution and paid fees of Rs. 51,000/- and 56,000/- respectively with proper receipt.
It is also admitted that the mark sheets had been handed over to the student complainants and the original certificate of the complainants were withheld by the O.P. for no reason, whatsoever.
The key argument advanced before us by the O.P. was that complainants did not pay the balance fees in respect of the service provided by the O.P.
Ld counsel of the complainants draws our attention to annexure 4 and 5 where University Grand Commission informed that UGC has not granted any approval to the EIILM university to open off campus/study center and the Diploma Mechanical of EIILM university, Sikkim has never been accorded recognition by erstwhile Distance Education Council (DEC) or Distance Education Bureau (DEB) of UGC for offering above programme through distance mode.
The coordinator of the O.P. institution placed before us the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Misc. Case No. 12/2013 dated 04/06/13 which shows that two numbers of FIR were lodged against EIILM university from which O.P. took affiliation.
It is clear that without having valid recognition the O.P. institution went on conducting course, procured money from the student complainants. Though O.P. handed over mark sheet but did not handed over certificate despite persuasion.
It has been ample proved that O.P. has no recognition and no authority to conduct the course but did so. In Bhupesh Khurana & ors versus Vishwa Buddha Parishad & ors 2000(3) CPR, 49,NC, 5 judges bench was pleased to hold that offering admission for a course on representation that college was affiliated with university where as it was not, amounts to deficiency in service. In the present case the O.P. also collected money from the student complainants for technical education which was illegal because of non- affiliation from any recognized university.
So we are of the opinion that by conduct, the O.P. institution not only tried to misappropriate the money of the student complainants but also destroyed the valuable time and energy of the youths dreaming from well settlement of life by way of proper education. They have been deprived and deceived to fulfill the dreams by the O.P. On perusal of documents and materials on record placed before us and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we observe that the present case is a glaring example of adoption of unfair trade practice and the complainant have been able to prove the case against the O.P. fully on all points as stated above and the complainants are entitled to get a decree as prayed for Hence,
ORDERED
That the complainant case no 43 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.
The O.P. is directed to pay a sum of 51,000/- (Fifty one thousand) only to complainant no. 1 and 56,000/- (Fifty six thousand) only to complainant no. 2 along with 9% interest from the date of deposit of that amount till its realization to both the complainants and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only to each of the complainants for harassment, pain and mental agony and a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) only each within two months from the date of this order, failing which Rs. 200/- (Two hundred) only for each day will be charged as damage for each of the complainant till payment. Punitive damage if so collected would be credited to the Consumer Legal Aid account bearing No. 34735771817 of SBI, Purulia Branch.
Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
