Order-16.
Date-17/01/2018.
Shri Anupam Bhattacharyya, President.
The instant complaint is for payment of Rs.14,53,400/- including the fees deposited for Rs.1,88,400/- and the balance including the expenses incurred, compensation for deficiency of service and for mental agony and litigation cost.
The Complainant’s main case in brief, is that the Complainant No. 2 son of Complainant-1 was admitted in B.Sc Degree Course in the stream of ‘Interiors Designing & Architecture’ for the session 2015-‘17 under Karnataka State Open University, paying in total Rs.1,88,400/-. On 16.07.2016 the OPs informed the Complainant-2 that they will not be able to provide him B.Sc Degree Certificate and asked to avail two years’ Advance Diploma in Interiors Designing & Architecture. On 17.09.2016 the Complainant -2 applied for refund of the money paid, but did not refund the same, for their negligence the Complainant -2’s future has been doomed and for that he had to loss all other opportunities by spending unnecessary classes since 06.04.2016. He had to spend huge amount for accommodation and other expenditures. The Complainant sent legal notice to OP-1. He had to spend huge amount for accommodation and other expenditures. He has claimed in total Rs.14,53,400/- giving detailed break up in the schedule of claim, but no result. Hence, the instant case.
Written Version filed by the OPs 1 and 2, in brief, is that OPs 1 and 2 is a study centre affiliated to Karnataka Open University to conduct B,Sc in the stream of Interiors Designing & Architecture. The Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 12.08.2014 stipulating in details the responsibility and liability of the respective parties including OPs 1 and 2 in conducting the said courses. UGC had discontinued the recognition of the programme conducted by the Karnataka State Open University by notification No UGC/DEV-8/KSOU/1/2015 dated 16.06.015 and the same was not recognized beyond the batch of 2012-’13. The proforma OP, the Vice Chancellor, Karnataka Open University issued a notification dated 1st July, 2015 whereby the said University discontinued the recognition to run the said courses. OP-1 filed a Writ Petition under article before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, challenging the said notification and the Hon’ble High Court seisin over the said issue. The question of discontinuation of recognition being the policy matter of the statutory body the UGC, the Complainant has no right to sue against the UGC and the Karnataka University and not against the OP-1 and 2 and the alleged complaint being for discontinuation of the course as per notification of the UGC which is the statutory body and for that the case is not maintainable and also the Complainant in this particular case cannot be termed as a consumer and also the OPs 1 and 2 cannot be termed as a service provider under the CP Act and for that the case is not maintainable.
Considering the pleadings of both sides the following points have been raised for disposal of the case.
Points for Decision.
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and law?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether the case is barred by limitation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- What other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons
Point Nos. 1 to 5
All the points are taken up together with for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for payment of Rs.14,53,400/- including the fees deposited for Rs.1,88,400/- and the balance including the expenses incurred, compensation for deficiency of service and for mental agony and litigation cost.
The Complainants main case is that the Complainant No. 2 son of Complainant-1 was admitted in B.Sc Degree Course in the stream of ‘Interiors Designing & Architecture’ for the session 2015-2017 under Karnataka State Open University, paying in total Rs.1,88,400/-. On 16.07.2016 the OPs informed the Complainant-2 that they will not be able to provide him B.Sc Degree Certificate and asked to avail two years’ Advance Diploma in Interior Designing & Architecture. On 17.09.2016 the Complainant -2 applied for refund of the money paid, but did not refund the same, for their negligence the Complainant -2’s future has been doomed and for that he had to loss all other opportunities by spending unnecessary classes since 06.04.2016. The Complainant sent legal notice to OP-1, but no result for that course. He had to spend huge amount for accommodation and other expenditures. He has claimed in total Rs.14,53,400/- giving detailed break up in the schedule of claim.
On the other hand, written version filed by the OPs 1 and 2 is that OPs 1 and 2 is a study centre affiliated to Karnataka Open University to conduct B,Sc in the stream of Interiors Designing & Architecture. The Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 12.08.2014 stipulating in details the responsibility and liability of the respective parties including OPs 1 and 2 in conducting the said courses. UGC had discontinued the recognition of the programme conducted by the Karnataka State Open University by notification No UGC/DEV-8/KSOU/1/2015 dated 16.06.015 and the same was not recognized beyond the batch of 2012-’13. The proforma OP, the Vice Chancellor, Karnataka Open University issued a notification dated 1st July, 2015 whereby the said University discontinued the recognition to run the said courses. OP-1 filed a Writ Petition under article before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, challenging the said notification and the Hon’ble High Court seisin over the said issue. The question of discontinuation of recognition being the policy matter of the statutory body the UGC, the Complainant has no right to sue against the UGC and the Karnataka University and not against the OP-1 and 2 and the alleged complaint being for discontinuation of the course as per notification of the UGC which is the statutory body and for that the case is not maintainable and also the Complainant in this particular case cannot be termed as a consumer and also the OPs1 and 2 cannot be termed as a service provider under the CP Act.
To prove the case both parties have filed evidence on affidavit and questionnaires and replies vis-à-vis and they have also filed the relevant document in support of their respective case.
In this case question of non-maintainability of this particular case has been raised on the ground that impugned B.Sc degree in ‘Interior Designing & Architecture’ affiliated to Karnataka Open University was on the basis of recognition by University Grant Commission but the same being discontinued recognition as per notification dated 16.06.2015.
It is clear from the notification issued by the UGC that same was discontinued and for the interest of the Student, OPs 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court and the same is seisin over in the said issue.
It is the case of by the OP 1 and 2 that they are not the service provider. The Complainant continued the course for about 02 years and the fees paid by them is Rs.1,88,400/-.
In this case the Complainant has claimed huge amount of compensation for loss of career and other expenses incurred for continuing this course including accommodation charges and other expenses.
In this regard it is crystal clear that his particular course was discontinued for the notification of the UGC and for that they have moved before the Hon’ble Court and specific order of Hon’ble High Court has not filed before this Forum and it is clear that the OPs 1 and 2 is not actually responsible for the discontinuation, but to our mind they are obviously responsible for refund of the fees. If some portion of that fees had already been deposited with the University, they are at liberty to realize the same from the University but the Complainant should not suffer for that amount which they have already deposited for the course which was discontinued by the notification dated 16.06.2015 issued by the UGC.
Regarding non-maintainability of the Complaint petition, we are of view that in this case the UGC being not a party and for absence of any claim against University and the OP 1 and 2 being study centre where they admitted the student for the course and the same being discontinued as per notification of UGC the case is maintainable for the claim for refund of amount which the OPs1 and 2 has already received.
Considering the above we find that all the points are disposed in favour of the complainant in part and, as such, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,88,400/- along with interest 7 percentp.a. only from the fate of filing of this case till realization from the OPs 1 and 2 along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case No.158 of 2017 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OPs1 and 2 and dismissed against OP3.
OPs 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount.
OPs1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,88,400/- along with interest at the rate of7 percentp.a. from the date of filing of this case till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order, in default, the OPs 1 and 2 is to pay fine at the rate ofRs.100/- per day delay and the amount so accumulated should be deposited to this Forum.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision of the C.P. Ac
