DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 1434 of 2009 Date of Inst:10.11.2009 Date of Decision:19.11.2010 Robin Jain son of Shri Suresh Kumar Jain r/o Colony No.1, House No.12, Guhla Cheeka, District Kaithal. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. The ICFAI University, Dehradun, Village Bhawala, Near Saila Khui, Industrial Area, Poanta Sahib Road, District Dehradun. 2. ICFAI National College (INC) (now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh) through its Principal/Campus Head. 3. Col.K.K.Sharma, Principal, ICFAI National College (INC) (now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh. 4. Shri Sukhwinder Singh Mann, Assistant Manager (Development), ICFAI National College (INC) (now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh. 5. Anjali Mahajan, Counselling Officer, ICFAI National College (INC) (now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Mohit Jaggi, Adv. for complainant Sh.Pankaj Gupta, Adv. for OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Robin Jain has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs No.2 to 5 be directed to:- i) Refund the fee of Rs.3.85 lacs. ii) Pay Rs.12 lacs as compensation for wasting precious two years of the complainant. iii) Pay Rs.2.50 lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iv) Pay Rs.1 lac as expenses incurred on accommodation etc. v) Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation. vi) Pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date this amount became due till its realization. vii) Restrain Ops No.2 to 5 from holding examination for various courses to be commenced on 11.11.2009. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that the complainant undertook the entrance test for admission to MBA and received interview letters from various institutes including OP-2. At the time of admission, the complainant was assured that they have an affiliation from ICFAI University, Dehradun (OP-1) and he would be given regular degree of the said institute and that their centre is a study centre of OP-1. The complainant was also assured by OPs No.2 to 5 that they have 100% placement in their institute. Allured by the false promises made by OPs No. 2 to 5, he chose to get admission in their college and deposited admission fee of Rs.15,000/- as admission fee and Rs.3,85,000/- as course fee. The complainant attended the classes in Sector 25, Chandigarh for about 3 months and pre-MBA classes from 15.05.2008 to 30.06.2008. However, suddenly on 18/19.10.2008 he was shocked to know that the name of institute was changed from INC to INC Adam Smith and further that the college was not affiliated with the ICFAI University, Dehradun but was affiliated with ICFAI University, Tripura which was not disclosed to him. According to the complainant, in the letter dated 21.10.2008 it has been mentioned that as per the UGC rule, the requirement of 75% attendance is mandatory and the said requirement is applicable to the regular students only. According to the complainant, he was given admission as a regular student of MBA. It has been asserted by the complainant that the institute which is providing academic support has no right to change affiliation from one university to another as it is only to provide academic support. Vide circular dated 30.10.2008 he sought information regarding the functioning of the OPs but nothing was provided. Besides this, in the prospectus for the year 2009, OPs No. 2 to 5 have misled the students by showing 100% placement for the year 2006-08. According to the complainant, from the very beginning the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, fraud and cheating by giving misleading information about their status and by not providing the required infrastructure as was promised. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the relief mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OPs No.2 to 5, it has been denied that it was so mentioned in the prospectus that they have affiliation from ICFAI University, Dehradun or that they were UGC recognized. It has been submitted that the INC was providing only academic support and placement assistance just equivalent to tuition classes for which no UGC recognition was required. It has been submitted that the complainant submitted the application form of his own volition after going through the prospectus. It has further been pleaded that the complainant had deposited the fee for the first and second year on his own free will and after completion of 1-1/2 year and availing services to the fullest extent, the complainant stopped coming to the campus and now is seeking refund of the fees on false grounds. The complainant was never stopped from appearing in the end semester examination. The change from INC to INC-Adam-Smith has been admitted. It has been denied that the requirement of 75% attendance was only mandatory for regular students or that the complainant was given admission as a regular student. It has been pleaded that the disclosure at page 5 of the prospectus clearly mentioned that INC was a constituent of ICFAI Academy. It has been submitted that the complainant has filed the present complaint just to defame the OPs and no other student has raised any doubt. It has been clarified that the INC centers were not the off-campus centers of the ICFAI University. In these circumstances, according to OPs No.2 to 5, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. OP No.1 filed its separate written statement and has taken almost identical grounds as were taken by OPs No.2 to 5. It has been pleaded and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint qua it deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. and written submissions filed by the complainant. 6. The contention of the OPs is that they never made any misrepresentation, that their institute was not affiliated with the ICFAI University, Dehradun but it was extending academic support and placement assistance to the students. It is argued that they were helping the candidates to appear for ICFAI University, Dehradun examinations and to clear the MBA examination as a private candidate. This contention runs quite contrary to the representations made by the OPs to the complainant and others. 7. Annexure C-5/A, is the document issued by the OP in which it is specifically mentioned that their institute is affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun. There is another letter dated 21.10.2008 issued by OP-3 in which it was specifically mentioned that the degree of the students will come from ICFAI University, Dehradun. However, it is now contended by the OPs in their reply that their institute was not affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun and therefore the representation made vide Annexure C-5/A is proved to be a false representation. 8. In fact from the very beginning the OPs had been giving an impression that theirs was an off campus of ICFAI University, Dehradun. Annexure C/2 is the welcome address of the Director of the OP-2 in which it was mentioned that they were offering a full-time MBA programe in 154 INC campuses across the country. In Annexure C-5/A they have mentioned that it was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun. The letter dated 21.10.2008 issued by OP-3 records about agitation of the students regarding the requirement of 75% attendance and their insistence on this. OP-3 referred to the University Grants Commission (herein after mentioned as UGC) rule providing for the same and mentioned that they do not wish to compromise on this. It was admitted that communication was sent to the parents whose wards were not attending requisite number of classes. They had been doing this for the last three years and would continue to do the same in future which was the practice in all 154 INC campuses in the country. The contention of the OP now is that in fact it was not a regular study course and 75% attendance was not necessary but it was insisted by them only to make their students fare well as they were only sending students as private candidates. It is however not understood as to why they were referring to UGC rule which admittedly was not applicable to them. It was therefore mentioned intentionally to give the colour that theirs was an off campus of ICFAI University, Dehradun. 9. When the complainant was admitted in the course, he had filled up an application form for enrollment copy of which is Annexure OP/2. This document also mentions that he was being enrolled to ICFAI University, Dehradun. This was also done to suggest that they are the off-campus institute of the said University and were competent to enroll the students on its behalf. There is an application form attached with it in which the centre of examination was mentioned to be Chandigarh. It has also been alleged by the complainant that by showing the centre at Chandigarh, the OP-2 was working in league with OP-1 to run the centre outside the state of Uttrakhand which under the law they could not do. However it was done by them to befool their students and to let them to believe that they were studying in the ICFAI University, affiliated College and not in a private coaching institute which, in fact, it was and is continuing with the same character. 10. The complainant was issued a detailed marks sheet Annexure C/16 showing that it was issued by ICFAI University, Dehradun. The intention was to make the students believe that the studies in the said institute were being conducted under the aegis of ICFAI University, Dehradun being its off campus. 11. When the information was obtained from UGC, New Delhi, it was reported that the ICFAI University Dehradun and ICFAI University Tripura which were private Universities were empowered to award degrees only from their main campus with the approval of Statutory Council wherever required. It was also reported that all the Universities are required to obtain prior approval of Joint Committee of AICTE, UGC and Distance Education Council (DEC)to run distance education programmes outside the Jurisdiction of their respective states and that ICFAI Universities are not permitted to run the off-campus centre in J&K and in the rest of India. It is therefore clear that the OP-2 could not have been run by the OP No.1-University as its off-campus and no degree could be awarded by the OP-University from any place other than their own University campus. It shows that the OP-2 was being run contrary to the legal and statutory requirements of the competent bodies. 12. The Learned Counsel for the complainant also referred to Annexure C/17 which is the Annual Report of the ICFAI University, Dehradun in which also a mention is made at page number 4 and 8 of the ICFAI National College i.e. OP-2. 13. The contention of the complainant is that if it had been made known to him that the said institute is not a part of ICFAI University, Dehradun or it was only private coaching institute he would not have chosen to study there. However, when he was led to believe that OP-2 is the institute which is being run by the University itself, he opted for admission in the said College. However, when ICFAI students came to know that a fraud had been played on them they also protested regarding which a news item appeared in Chandigarh Tribune dated 21.10.2008 a copy of which is Annexure C/4. The news about the misdeeds of ICFAI also appeared in a 24 page magazine “Careers 360” a copy of which is Annexure C-5/A. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant requested the OPs for refund of the fee paid by him but the same has not been refunded so far. The contention of the complainant is that agitations had been made and there was uproar among the students against the OPs since October, 2008 as is clear from Annexures attached with the complaint. It therefore shows that the OPs extracted the tuition fee and other amounts from the complainant by misrepresentations and giving an impression that OP-2 was being run by the ICFAI University, Dehradun as its off-campus under their supervision, which actually it was not being a purely coaching institute. The OPs, therefore, have no right to retain the amount, they have rather wasted the precious year of the complainant. Had it been told by them that it was merely a private coaching institution giving only the tuitions, the complainant would not have opted to study in the said centre. 14. The complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against OP-1 and therefore, the complaint qua it stands dismissed. 15 In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with direction to OPs No.2 to 5 jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.3,85,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits. OPs No.2 to 5 are also directed to pay Rs.7000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. 16. This order be complied with by the OP Nos.2 to 5 jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP Nos.2 to 5 shall be liable to refund Rs.3,85,000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the respective deposits till its realization besides costs of litigation. 17. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced sd/- 19.11.2010 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
C.C.No.1434 of 2009 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 11.11.2010. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 19.11.2010 Member President Member
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
