SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
The synopsis of the complaint is that Rahul Samnta is son of the complainant. Rahul passed H.S. examination in 1st division in the year 2014. The opposite party insisted the complainant to admit his son for study in 3 years B.S.C in Hospitality and Tourism Management which is under Vinayka Mission Sikkim University of Sikkim, approved by UGC. The complainant, being convinced at the prospectus of said institution admitted his son therein on payment or Rs. 68,000/-. But till December, 2016 the Opposite Party did not take any university examination of the students. The Complainant being surprised demanded back the admission money of Rs. 68,000/- in January 2017 but the OP did not respond. The complainant searched regarding affiliation of the said Institution of the OP and learnt from the Sikkim University that the Institution of the OP is not affiliated by the UGC. Thus the OP has cheated the complainant and his son and many other students in such way. The future of the son of the complainant has been doomed.
Hence, the instant case with the prayers as made in the complaint petition on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
The OP has contested the complaint by filing written version and denied all the material allegation of the complainant and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint on various grounds if Law. It is the specific case of the OP that the complainant is a commission agent of various such institutions like the OP’s. He used to bring students for getting them admission in the OP institute and get commission from the OP. In this regard a deed of agreement had been executed in between the OP and complainant on 10.11.2004. This OP admits that Rahul Samanta took admission in the course of Hospitality and Tourism Management as a student for a period of 3 years in 2015. But the complainant did not pay any admission fees and other expenses to the OP. He adjusted the same amount against his commission money. Moreover, cash receipt had been transected in the complainant and the OP for the admission fees of his son along with the receipts of commission money for admission of other students in the institution. Subsequently, the complainant could not submit valuable documents to the OP University for enrollment/ registration in the said university, thus it was impossible for his son to sit in the examination of said course. As per agreement as above, the complainant had right to maintain the office work though he was a commission agent. Being such a position the complainant forged valuable documents and cash receipts of payment of admission fees and other fees without knowledge of the OP for wrongful gain of the complainant. This OP asserts further that for admission in the Vinayaka Mission Sikkim University, the rest amount of Rs.12,000/- remand due for his son. He did not pay this balance amount as per contract. Son of the complainant took part in a training in a hotel Neo Mayestic, Goa on 20.09.2015 for six months and thereafter he has been absorbed in a job in Kolkata Hotel on 08.08.2016 and has been drawing salary of Rs.8,000/- per month.
Under such circumstances, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition with costs.
Point to be considered in this case is whether the complaint case is maintainable and (2) whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Issue No 1 is taken up first for consideration for the sake of convenience.
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, the written version and all the documents filed by both the parties, the affidavit in chief, the questionnaires and reply thereto filed by the respective parties and reply vice versa and heard the submission of the ld advocate for the complainant. Considered.
The Op has filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the case. In the petition as well as in the written version the OP has taken the plea that the complainant has filed this case for his son who is a major and the complainant has not taken any permission from the ld Forum before filing of this complaint. The complainant did not also take any power of attorney from his son to file and proceed with the case and to file affidavit in chief . The complainant was an agent of the OP’s institution. OP alleged that the complainant’s son did not give any permission to the complainant to file the case and hence, the complaint is not maintainable.
The complainant filed written objection against this petition of the OP and contended that he spend huge money for study of his son Rahul Samanta, as his guardian and hence, the case is maintainable.
To support such contention of the complainant, the ld advocate for the complainant has a decision reported in 2011 (2) CPR 94 (NC) wherein it has been held that complaint filed by complainant as guardian under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as guardian of his wards was maintainable. It was observed there that the OP of that case took the plea that complaint was not maintainable as the same has been filed by guardian of the complainant not the complainant. In paragraph five of said case it was observed that the complaint filed by the respondent as guardian of his wards namely Mrs. Preeti was maintainable. In view of that decision of the Hon’ble National Commission , we are of the view that the complaint filed by father of the complainant is also maintainable.
This point is thus answered in favour of the complainant.
Issue No. 2 :
Grievance of the complainant is that the OP being Director of Swami Viveananda Foundation’s Cambridge Institute of Management Studies situated at village Bargachia PO Mechada PS. Kolaghat took admission of Rahul Samanta, son of the complainant, whose date of birth is 03.01.1996 son of the complainant passed HS examination in the first division in the year 2014. OP insisted the complainant for admission of his son for study in three years B.Sc. in Hospitality & Tourism Management which is under Vinayaka Mission Sikkim University of Sikkim which is also approved by the University Grants Commission. He was also attracted by the leaflets and prospectus of the said institution of the OP. The complainant alleges that from December, 2016 the OP did not take any University Examination of any student Hence, the complainant demanded back Rs. 68,000/- in January 2017 which he paid at the admission of his son, but the OP did not pay any heed. Besides that the ld advocate for the complainant also contended that the Institution of the OP is not affiliated by the University Grants Commission or by the Government of Sikkim, In this way the OP cheated the complainant and his son. In support of his case the complainant has filed many documents.
On the other hand the OP alleges that the complainant is a commission agent of various institutions and he was also a commission agent of the institution of the OP. The complainant used to bring students for them admitted in the OP’s institution and he used swell many from the OP. Thereafter he had no communication with the OP’s institution. in this regard a deed of agreement had been executed between the complainant and the OP on 10.11.2014. It is also alleged by the OP that the complainant took huge money of commission money totaling Rs 1,13,250/- for admission of students with the OP’s institution on various dates i.e on 18.04.16, 14.06.2016, 01.08.2016 and 08.08.16 and on 26.08.2016. The OP admits that son of the complainant namely Rahul Samanta got admitted in their institution in the course of Hospitality Management and Tourism for a period of three years in 2015 under Vinayaka Mission Sikkim University of Sikkim approved by the UGC . But the complainant did not pay any admission fees and other expenses .He adjusted the same against his commission money. Subsequently the complainant could not file valuable documents for the OP for enrollment /registration in the said University so, it was impossible for the son of the complainant to sit in any examination in said course. It is further alleged by the OP that before admission in the OP’s the son of the complainant took admission under Annamallai University at Kolkata in 2014 but could not submit any completion certificate or other documents which was also one of the cause not sitting in any examination of the son of Complainant .The OP further alleged that an amount of Rs. 12,000/- towards admission fees is still due from Rahul Samanta. As a result, he was driven out from the institution.
The complainant filed affidavit in-chief the OP also filed affidavit in-chief and questionnaires and reply was filed by the parties vice versa.
We have perused the documents filed in the record.
Ld advocate for the complainant referred a decision reported ion 2011 (1) CPR wherein it has been held that Educational Institutions can not cheat students by adopting unfair trade practice. 208(34) CPR 172 wherein has been held that Admitting students in schools which did not have recognition amounts to unfair trade practice.
In this case the OP admitted that they took money from son of the complainant for admission in their institution though the course is not recognized by the UGC.
It was held in (2010) CPJ 265 that Consumer Protection Act 1986 Sections 2(1)(g), 2 (I)(r) and 2(i)(d) - Education -course not recognized by the UGC - complainant given admission into MCS course by the Op - allegedly course changed into M.Sc. computer science without complainant’s consent complaint allowed OP was directed to pay Rs. 1,00000/- with interest of 9% per annum. It was held that admission by the appellant in MCS course without obtaining prior permission. UGC scheme did not permit the appellant to admit students to MCS course and no consent of respondent 1 obtained for converting the course from MCS to M.Sc. computer science deficiency in service and unfair trade practices proved. Order upheld.
In this case we do not find any document filed by the OP which could prove that the Institution of the OP is affiliated by the UGC or Government. So it was a cheating to the students by the institution and tantamount to unfair practices as per the C Pact 1986.
Ld advocate for the complainant also referred a decision reported in 2009 SCC (Cri) 520 wherein it has been held Consumer Protection Services covered under the Act Services rendered by educational institutions Dental College which neither affiliated with a University nor recognized by Dental Council of India, admitting respondent students to BDS course for consideration If amounted to deficiency in service Relief that may be granted. Held- said act of the College fell within purview of ‘deficiency’ as defined in the 1986 Act –Hence, National Commission rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the college. Thus order of Commission directing refund of admission expenses to students with interest @12% affirmed.
The complainant filed pay receipts to show that he deposited the amount claimed by him. Receipt dated 16.09.2015 shows deposit of Rs 20,000/- by the complainant, Rs. 15,000/- by receipt dated 21.09.2015; Rs. 5000/- by receipt dated 16.11.2015 and RS. 28,000/- by receipt dated 06.08.2016. No document has been filed by the OP to prove that the institution has been granted or affiliated by the Government.
It appears that the OP tried to make out a third case by alleging against complainant’s involvement with the institution etc, but this can not be decided in this case. If the OP has any particular grievance, he can file a separate proceeding against the complainant. In the present case it is very clear that the OP made cheating by admitting the son of the complainant in spite of the fact that the institution has no affiliation of the UGC or any Government.
In the above circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get back the fees money deposited by him with 10% interest from the month of September, till realization. He has prayed for Rs. 17,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. But in view of the discussion as above and after careful scrutiny of the documents and rulings we are of the view that we can not impose compensation of Rs. 17,00,000/- on the OP. However the complainant is entitled to get litigation cost of Rs 10,000/- from the OP.
The second point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant in part.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/ 567 of 2017 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP.
The Op is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 68,000/- to the complainant towards refund of the admission fees paid by him and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, in default the OP shall pay interest @ Rs.10% per annum from 07.11.2017 till realization of the full amount.
There will be no order of compensation.
In case of non compliance of the order as above, the complainant will have the liberty to execute the order according to law.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
