BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE URBAN

    6^th DAY OF JULY 2021

Complainant/s: -               Ms.Lourdes Swetha.S.,

D/o Mr.M.L.Stephen Raj,

Aged about 21 years, R/at 2/29,

   Rojanagar, NGOB Colony,

   Tirunelveli-627007

   Tamilnadu.

   (Sri K.S.Harish, Adv.)

V/s

Opposite party/s:-             The Principal

Vogue Institute of Fashion

Technology, No.4, 3^rd Floor, Anand Towers, Rajaram Mohan Roy Road, Richmond Circle, Sampangi Rama Nagara, Bengaluru-560025.

                                                  (Sri Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, Adv.)

ORDER

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to return all the original documents submitted by her at the time of taking admission with the OP, which includes her SSLC Marks-sheet, XII Standard Marks Sheet, Transfer Certificate etc.,, to handover the First year B.Sc., degree marks card and issue the T.C. and other documents in originals that are required for her future studies, to pay a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- as compensation for the loss of academic year in her educational career, to award cost and such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

The Complainant submits that, she was a successful candidate in Standard XII (10+2) from examination conducted by Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Board during 2016.  When she was lookout to pursue Bachelor’s degree in the field of Fashion and Apparels Design, she came to know about the institution of OP through various online portal and advertisements.  Copy of brochure/shots produced herewith.  Further complainant submits that she got information available on the website, made a personal visit to the Administrative Office of the OP at Bengaluru in the month of June, 2018.  During the course of interaction with representative of OP name called Ms.Divya, the OP has conducted B.Sc Course in Fashion and Apparel Design and that the students are required to travel to the campus at Doddaballapur for laboratory/practical as and when required for which transportation would be provided by the institution.  Further complainant submits that acting on the representations made by institution, she got herself admitted to course on 30.07.2018 by remitting a sum of Rs.4,06,750/- which includes admission fee of Rs.2,86,750/- (entire first year course admission fee). Copy of admission card is produced herewith.

Further complainant submits that she started attending the course, she was shocked to realize that contrary to the representations, the classes were conducted at Doddaballapur and that she had to travel all the way from Bengaluru to Doddaballapur every day and also did not have adequate infrastructure for imparting quality education and qualified faculties as projected in the prospectus. The transportation was also of very poor quality and OP did not have sufficient vehicles to accommodate all the students who would travel to Doddaballapur from Bengaluru and other nearby places.  On many occasions, she was made to stand or sit on the floor of the bus during such travel and many times the bus broke down, end up hiring taxies and reaching home late.  The college campus also did not provide adequate drinking water facility and the condition of the canteen was also pathetic.  However, there were no perceptible improvements as assured even-after lapse of months. The complainant wanted to discontinue the course at this juncture and accordingly demanded for refund of the admission and other fees paid by her vide letter dated 31.07.2018 for which OP declined to reimburse the amount during the middle of the year.  Having no other option, she continued with the course and completed the first year course. 

Further complainant submits that owing to immense mental agony and stress that she had to undergo during the course, she decided to discontinue the course, accordingly, she did not continue for the second year.  Despite communication dt.17.01.2020 and repeated requests for return of the original documents such as SSLC marks card, 12^th Standard Marks card, First year B.Sc., Degree marks and transfer certificate for which OP completely failed and neglected to return the same.  Further complainant submits that her father had also addressed several E-mail requests to OP to return the academic certificates.  The complainant and her mother also made several visits to the campus of OP at Doddaballapur for which OP made an illegal demand for fee for the remaining semesters as a precondition to return the original documents.  It is further submitted by the complainant that on account of the failure of OP to return the original academic records, she could not take up any other course.  The complainant has got issued legal notice to OP on 09.03.2020 seeking return of the academic records and compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- for illegally withholding the academic records.  In response to the legal notice, OP issued an untenable reply dated 25.04.2020 demanding payment of Rs.3,65,000/- for the II year and Rs.3,65,000/- for the III year. It is pertinent to mention her that the complainant could not make personal visit to the college thereafter due to prevailing Covid-19 pandemic situation and the lock down announced by the Government.    Further complainant had requested on 07.05.2020 for transfer of her records to the Administrative Office at Bengaluru for which OP did not respond.  In the situation, one more reminder was sent on 01.06.2020 reiterating the request for return of documents.

Further complainant submits that the action of OP in withholding the academic records of complainant demanding fee for the remaining two years course is not only illegal but also opposed to Circular dated 18.07.2018 issued by Bangalore University in pursuance of the notice issued by UGC directing all the Principals of the affiliated colleges to strictly adhere to directions of the UGC which prohibits withholding of documents in originals.  The complainant losing a valuable year as she could not take up admission for 2019-20 for want of original records and she is now facing threat of losing one more year 2020-21 as she is yet to get her records back.  Copy of public notice No.F.No.1-3/2007 CPP-II dated 23.07.2017 issued in this regard is produced.  The OP has not returned the original documents despite repeated requests, which demonstrates the determination of OP to harass the complainant and to extort money which is not legitimately due.  Hence, complainant pray of Rs.19,50,000/- for the loss of academic years, mental agony etc., 

It is submitted that the cause of action for the above complaint arose on 30.07.2018 when the complainant got herself admitted to the course by remitting a sum of Rs.4,06,750/-, further when she wanted to discontinue the course and made a demand for return of her original records on 09.03.2020 when she got issued legal notice to OP for calling upon to handover the original documents and on 25.04.2020 when OP issued reply demanding fees for the remaining two years.  Hence, this complaint.   

3. OP did appear and filed version submits that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. OP further submits that the complainant has sought for relief directing it to return all the original documents submitted by her and also for direction to issue 1^st year B.Sc Degree marks card with TC and a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- in complaint itself is not maintainable as the complainant failed to make out a case to grant the relief claimed.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be rejected.

Further OP submits that she had joined the Bachelor Degree in Fashion Apparels Design in 2018 and she has failed to state true facts.  The averments made in para 4 of complaint are denied as false.  The complainant did not take interest from the beginning itself and she failed to attend the classes regularly.  There is a lapse on the part of complainant.

Further OP submits that it is false that she was shocked to realize that the classes were conducted at Doddaballapur and she had to travel from Bengaluru to Doddaballapur, before admission it was made known to all the students including the complainant that the Op is conducting classes at Doddaballapur.  Further OP submits that the averments made by complainant that OP did not have adequate infrastructure, did not have sufficient details to accommodate all students, complainant was made to stand or sit on the floor of the bus, many times bus was broken down, did not have adequate drinking water facility, canteen etc., are denied as false.  The complainant is making false and reckless allegation against it.  Further the averments made in para Nos.7 and 8 of the complaint are also denied as false. The E-mail sent by complainant was duly answered by OP.  The OP institution has to meet the overheads such as maintenance salary to the staff and faculties only from the fee received from students.  However, it was made known to the students in advance i.e. at the time of admission that the fee paid shall not be refunded and they are liable to pay the entire fee of the course for all the three years. As such the complainant is not entitled to have the refund of the fee paid by her. 

Further OP submits that in para 9 of the complaint she would not take up any other course of her choice and had to lose a valuable year on account of the failure on the part of OP to return the original records etc., are denied as false.  The averments made in para Nos.10 and 11 are also denied as false.  She is not entitled to have the original records.  The contention of the complainant that she has not taken admission for second year is incorrect. 

Further OP submits that the institution is affiliated to Bengaluru University, now Bengaluru North University.  The University having satisfied with the infrastructure available, approved and permitted the institution to run the college.  At the time of admission and during counseling, the councilor explained as to the campus and other facilities in order to facilitate the students with required exposure.  This information is also available in the website.  The institution is having sufficient buses to carry the students from different places in Bengaluru.  Every bus has a faculty incharge, who travel in respective route bus and look after the convenience and welfare of the students.  The institution is also having RO water purifying plants.  Accordingly, the OP is having excellent infrastructure and faculty and institution has excellent class rooms, labs and spacious canteen facility. 

The OP further submits that a letter on 31.07.2018 informing that she intends to discontinue the course.  It is not practically feasible for a candidate to have taken a decision of discontinuation within a span of 5 days, as such the allegations made by the complainant are baseless and false.  The complainant has not at all cleared her papers and she has backlogs.    Further complainant did not attend the classes during the 2^nd year of third semester and she has failed to notify the same to the concerned or to the Principal. During the month of October 2019 i.e. at the fag end of the third semester, she submitted an application for discontinuation of her studies.  However, the institution considered the candidature of the complainant for the second year course also.  The complainant has signed and submitted the application form, wherein it is clearly mentioned under Clause 16(A Declaration by a student and her parent) at point No.4 it was stated that they (student and parent) shall not withdraw or discontinue the course which may cause financial loss to the institution.  It is within their knowledge that such course of action of either withdrawing or discontinuing the course would cause financial burden to the institution since the institution cannot fill the vacancy arisen in the middle of the year. Further no student will come and join entire course to the second or third year in view of the vacancy arisen.  In view of the discontinuation of the studies by the complainant, the institution has suffered financial loss. It is an admitted fact that the OP institution is not an aided institution. 

It is relevant to note that complainant’s parent has written letter to institution on 15.10.2019 regarding the discontinuation of course i.e. at the fag end of the third semester.  On the other hand the complainant claims to have medical reasons for her discontinuation of studies, but she did not produce any medical certificate in this regard.  Further OP submits that complainant contacted HOD and class teacher who in turn informed her to meet the Principal during the last week February 2020.  During this period she had been informed to complete the clearance formalities with all NOC in order to collect the documents/certificates.  But neither she nor her parents turned up to meet the Principal or college authorities.  However, the complainant has made reckless allegation that too at a belated stage which is not permissible.  Since the complainant discontinued her course in the middle of during the second year, the institution virtually suffered financial loss as the institution cannot fill the vacancy for which financial loss has arisen on account of the lapse on the part of the student.  Complainant has no right or authority to blame the institution. 

Further OP submits that the vacancy arisen to the discontinuation of course by the complainant is not filled and it remained vacant.  As such the OP has rightly claimed from the complainant to pay the remaining course fee for Rs.3,65,000/- for the second year and another sum of Rs.3,65,000/- for the third year.  Therefore, the claim petition made by the complainant is liable to be rejected due to the above frivolous litigation, the institution has suffered financial burden.  Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the cost of the litigation to the OP.    There is no cause of action and it is also relevant to note that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and dispute does not come within the purview of the C.P.Act, therefore, complaint is liable to be rejected with exemplary costs. 

4. After filing the version, case is posted to filing affidavit evidence of the complainant, the complainant has filed I.A.1/2020 under Section 13(3)(b) of C.P.Rules, 1987 R/w Section 151 CPC, 1908 to direct the OP to hand over the original SSLC Marks sheet, XII Standard Marks and TC for which the OP has filed objections to the said I.A.1/2020.  Since the matter is already posted to affidavit evidence of complainant, this Commission has ordered to consider this I.A.1/2020 at the time of final disposal.

5. To substantiate the case, the Complainant has filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11. OP has filed affidavit evidence. Both parties are filed their respective written arguments, when this matter is posted to hearing further by 19.07.2021.  That on 01.07.2021 complainant has filed I.A.1/2021 to advance the case from 19.07.2021 to 01.07.2021 to address the arguments.  Accordingly, the said application is ordered to put on 03.07.2021.  On that day, the learned counsel for the complainant and the OP addressed their oral arguments.  With a consent of both parties, the matter has been posted for judgement on this day.  Heard both sides. We have gone through the available materials on record.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?
2. What order?

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2:- As per final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1: During the course of arguments, this Commission has raised the question in respect of maintainability of the complaint by referring the order of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2020(I) CPR 773 NC in the case of Manu Solanki and others Vs Veniayaka Mission University (formerly known as Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation deemed University) and others.  The important point in the said case was if an institution imparting education does not have a proper affiliation in imparting education it is not rendering any service. The learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention stating that the said order has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CA No.003504/2020 and the same is admitted on 15.10.2020.  To substantiate this fact, memo with relevant document has been produced. 

8. Taking into consideration, the pendency of the said case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as against the order passed in the said Manu’s Solanki case, we are of the opinion to consider the available materials on record for just disposal of this complaint for return of the said documents, which was very necessary to the complainant to pursue her further education.  

9. The undisputed fact which reveals that the pleadings of the parties goes to show that the complainant has got admitted in the OP Institution for Fashion Technology by remitting a sum of Rs.4,06,750/- which includes admission fee of Rs.2,86,750/- and for the entire first year course which can be seen on going through the Annexure-B.  The complainant did not satisfied with regard to basic infrastructure for imparting quality education and qualified facilities as projected in the prospectus.  Hence, she decided to withdraw from the said Institution. The complainant has attended only for first and second semester but she did not pursue the remaining semester. Accordingly, the complainant has requested to the OP to return all original SSLC Mark-card, 12^th standard marks-card, first year B.Sc degree marks-card and transfer certificate for which there was no any proper response.  Instead of returning the said documents, the OP has demanding payment of Rs.3,65,000/- for the II year and Rs.3,65,000/- for the III year.

10. Now the question that crops up for our consideration is, whether such a claim is maintainable by virtue of the circular dated 18.07.2018 issued by the Bengaluru University in pursuance notice issued by UGC directing all the Principals of the Colleges affiliated in Bengaluru University to strictly adhere to the directions of the UGC which prohibit withholding documents in original, for payment of fee for remaining semester.  The said circular marked as Ex.A.11 (Annexure-J) reads thus:-

BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

No.Aca-I/A1/MISC/2018-19             date:18.07.2018

CIRCULAR

     All the Princiapls of the Colleges affiliated to Bangalore University are informed to refer to the Public Notice issued by UGC vide No.F.No.1-3/2007 CPP-II dated 23^rd April 2007 which has informed as under:-

The Commission is of the view that the institutes/Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice.  However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the School/Institution Leaving Certificate, marks Sheet, Caste Certificate and other documents in original. Further, the University has also stated in its affiliation order the following conditions:

PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ «£ÁPÁgÀt «zÁåyðUÀ¼À CAPÀ¥ÀnÖ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉà zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À CªÀ¢ü «ÄÃgÀzÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°èAiÉÄà ElÄÖPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è.  ¥ÀæªÉñÁ£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÁV ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ CAPÀ¥ÀnÖ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀæªÉñÁ£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ vÀéjvÀªÁV «vÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr «±Àé«zÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ w½¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

«zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è, PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃqÀzÉ, ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.  F §UÉÎ D ªÀµÀðzÀ/¸É«Ä¸ÀÖgï£À ¥ÀÆtðªÁUÀzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ ¨sÉÆÃzÀ£Á ±ÀĮ̪À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ±ÀĮ̪À£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

Inspite of the above instructions to the colleges, it is observed that many students are approaching the University about with holding of documents and demanding the payment of fee for remaining semesters from those students who are seeking transfer from one college to another.

Hence, all the Principals of the affiliated colleges of the University are hereby informed to strictly adhere to the direction of the UGC, failing which, the UGC should take all steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions stated in circular dated 23.04.2007.

11. On going through the pleadings of the both parties goes to show that the OP is the Institute of Fashion Technology which is imparting the education. In our considered view, the same is also governed by the Rules and Regulations of the concerned University.  If the above circular is strictly construed, the OP has no authority to withhold the said documents for non-payment of the 2^nd and 3^rd year fee as the complainant did not attended the 2^nd and 3^rd semester. When such being the fact, in the light of the said circular issued by the Bangalore University found at Annexure-J marked as Ex.A.11, OP is duty to bound to return the said documents without further delay to the complainant.  In this context, this Commission has no other go except to direct the OP to return the said original documents as prayed for, we hope the ends of justice will meet sufficiently. With regard to the compensation and litigation costs are concerned, the same is denied.  By virtue of disposing the main complaint, I.A.1/20 filed under Section 13(3)(b) of C.P.Rules, 1987 R/w Section 151 CPC, 1908 does not survive for our consideration. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 is partly in the affirmative.

12. Point No.2: In the result, we pass the following:                       

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part.

2. The OP is directed to return all the original documents which are SSLC marks-card, 12^th standard marks-card, First year B.Sc degree marks-card and transfer certificate to the complainant forthwith, failing which the complainant is at liberty to have the redress as per law. 

3. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected. 

4. Since the main complaint is disposed off, I.A.1/2020 filed by complainant under Section 13(3)(b) of C.P.Rules, 1987 R/w Section 151 CPC does not survive for our consideration.

5. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 6^th day of July, 2021)

The documents produced by complainant as marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 as follows:-