DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 227 of 08.08.2007<br /> Decided on : 31-03-2008 <br /> <br /> 1.Sukhpal Singh S/o Sh Amarjeet Singh R/o Village Kutianwali, Block Lambi, Tehsil Malout District Mukatsar.<br /> 2.Prem Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh R/o Village Laliana, District Bathinda.<br /> 3.Santosh Rani D/o Sh. Navneet Kumar R/o H. No. 21803, Street No. 1, Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, Bathinda.<br /> 4.Maneka Rani D/o Narain Dass C/o Sh. Nand Lal R/o H. No. 21808, Street No. 1, Gali Shiv Mandir Wali, Bathinda.<br /> 5.Gurmeet Singh S/o Sh. Hardev Singh R/o Village Mithri Budhgir, Tehsil Malout, District Mukatsar.<br /> ... Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Tribhuvan Education & Welfare Society, Off-Campus University Education Centre of Sri Rawat Pura Sarkar, International University (Raipur) Chhattisgarh, through its responsible persons;<br /> (a) Rajiv Mittal, Centre Coordinator, C/o 15-A New Gandhi Cloth Market, The Mall, Bathinda.<br /> (b) Pardeep Kumar Malik, Partner, R/o H. No. 17031, D-7, Gali No. 6, Basant Vihar, Bathinda.<br /> (c) Manohar Lal Sharma, Partner, R/o H. No. 16676, Street No. 6, Basant Vihar, Bathinda.<br /> 2.Shri Rawatpura Sarkar, International University, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) through its Directorate, office at D-12, Defence Colony, New Delhi.<br /> 3.State of Chhattisgarh, through its Education Minister. <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Rajinder Bhukal, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.D. Nayyar, Advocate, for opposite parties No. 1(b) & (c)<br /> Opposite party No. 3 exparte.<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') which has been preferred by the complainants seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund them Rs. 1,28,600/- alongwith interest @ 2%p.m. from the dates of receipt of payments; pay Rs. 50,000/- to each of them for mental and physical torture; Rs. 20,000/- to each of the complainants No. 1,3,4 & 5 and Rs. 14,000/- to complainant no. 2 on account of the wastage of their one year of lives during the academic session of 2004-05 due to deficiency in service on their part besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainants lies in the narrow compass as under :<br /> Shri Rawatpura Sarkar International University, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) had started one year B. Ed. full time regular course/programme alongwith other programmes of education so as to impart the requisite knowledge and modern technologies to the students so that they may become efficient teachers. This University was established under the provisions of Niji Kshetra Vishawvidyalaya (Sthapna Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 of Chhattisgarh. It was notified in the extra ordinary Gazette No. 221 of 9.9.02 of the Government of Chhattisgarh. An Off-campus University Education Centre C/o Shri Rawat Pura Sarkar, International University, (Raipur), Chhattisgarh, was started under the name and style of Tribhuwan Education Society at Bathinda through its Centre Coordinator namely Rajiv Mittal and partners S/Sh. Pardeep Kumar Malik and Manohar Lal Sharma. Centre Coordinator and these partners had told them (complainants) that their Off-campus is duly affiliated to opposite party No. 2 which is the recognised University and has been approved under the National Council of Technical Education (Here-in-after referred to as `NCTE'). They were further assured by opposite party No. 1 that their centre is recognised and approved by All India Council of Technical Education and NCTE. Believing their tall claims, they purchased prospectus from opposite party No. 1 wherein it was specifically made clear that B. Ed. Programme was designed and developed following the curriculum used in standard institution of education in India like NCTE etc., and degrees would be delivered to the successful candidates/students under Section 17(a) of National Council of Technical Education Act. They got admission in B. Ed. Course for the academic session of 2004-2005 through opposite party No. 1 after qualifying the written test held by opposite party No. 2. Requisite amount was got deposited by them towards admission fee and enrollment fee etc., with opposite party No. 1 for registration of their admission with opposite party No. 2. Receipts were issued by opposite party No. 1. Details of the amount deposited by them with opposite party No. 1 are as under :-<br /> Name of complainant Amount Receipt No. & Date<br /> 1. Sukhpal Singh 10,000/- 231/20.12.2004<br /> 12,000/- 554<br /> 500/- 553/18.8.2004<br /> 1,000/- 255/9.2.2005<br /> ------------------------------------------------<br /> Total : 23,500/-<br /> -----------------------------------------------<br /> 2. Prem Singh 6,500/- 594/27.10.2004<br /> 500/- 593/27.10.2004<br /> 6,000/- 597/18.11.2004<br /> 5 ,000/- 230/17.12.2004<br /> 5,000/- 402/23.1.2005<br /> -----------------------------------------------<br /> Total : 23,000/- <br /> ----------------------------------------------<br /> 3. Santosh Rani 1,000/- 252/2.2.2005<br /> 500/- 200 <br /> 12,000/- 571/20.9.2004<br /> 10,000/- 217/25.11.2004 <br /> ----------------------------------------------<br /> Total : 23,500/- <br /> ----------------------------------------------<br /> 4. Maneka Rani 12,600/- 587/14.10.2004<br /> 500/- 586/14.10.2004<br /> 10,000/- 221/13.12.2004<br /> --------------------------------------------<br /> Total: 23,100/- <br /> -------------------------------------------<br /> 5. Gurmeet Singh 500/- 492/28.7.2004<br /> 5,000/- 493/28.7.2004<br /> 7,000/- 589/19.10.2004<br /> 10,000/- 219/7.12.2004<br /> 1,000/- 346/31.1.2005<br /> --------------------------------------------<br /> Total : 23,500/- <br /> -------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> Total amount deposited by them comes of Rs. 1,28,600/- . They were attending the classes at the premises of opposite party No. 1 which were congested. Adequate and qualified teaching staff was not available there. Opposite party No. 1 had assured that sufficient space, necessary building, well qualified staff alongwith water supply etc.,. would be made available as per norms of the University for proper functioning of classes of B. Ed course. No steps were taken to provide basic amenities. They were told that examination of B. Ed would be held in May/June, 2005. Despite this, neither roll numbers have been issued nor examination has been held so far. Opposite party No. 1 continued running the B.Ed classes for a short period. Thereafter all of a sudden, they stopped the classes. When reasons were asked, no satisfactory reply was given. They (complainants) came to know that in view of the Judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition No. 19 of 2004 titled as Professor Yashpal and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, decided on 11.2.2005, provisions of section 5 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishawvidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyman) Adhiniyam, 2002 (under which provisions opposite party No. 2 was established) have been declared ultra vires and they have been struck down. As a consequence of this declaration, all the notifications issued by State of Chhattisgarh in gazette in the purported exercise of power under Section 5 of the aforesaid act, notifying the Universities were quashed and such Universities had ceased to exist. Hon'ble Supreme court had further directed that State Government may take appropriate measures to have such institutions affiliated to the already existing State Universities in Chhattisgarh. This direction was given keeping inview the interest of the students including them and also Section 33 and 34 of the Act which contemplate dissolution of the sponsoring body and liquidation of the University where under responsibility has to be assumed by the State Government. It was further made clear that benefit of affiliation of an institution would be extended only if it fulfills the requisite norms and standard laid down for such purposes and not to every kind of institution. As per condition mentioned at Sr. No. 12 of the Memorandum of understanding effected between opposite party No. 1 through its Centre Coordinator and opposite party No. 2, they were responsible for conducting examination and awarding degrees/diploma certificates and its recognition. They approached opposite party No. 1 for the refund of the amount deposited by them, but to no effect. Amount has been misappropriated by opposite party No. 1 in connivance with opposite party No. 2. They also made representation to opposite party No. 3 to do the needful by affiliating the institution of opposite party No. 1 with already existing State universities in Chhattisgarh. Their efforts yielded no fruits.<br /> 3. Opposite parties No. 1(b) & (c) filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is barred by limitation; complainants have deliberately and intentionally not given correct address of Mr. Rajiv Mittal and address of opposite party No. 2 has been wrongly given knowing fully well that it was operating from Raipur Chhattisgarh; complaint is not maintainable against them; complainants are not consumers; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties and complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands. Off campus University Education Centre under the Centre Coordinator-ship of Mr. Rajiv Mittal was being run by Shri Rawatpura Sarkar International University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India and the entire payment of fee and other charges were collected on behalf of University by Mr. Rajiv Mittal. Total payment so collected on behalf of the University was sent to it (University) by Centre Coordinator. As per Memorandum of Understanding between the University and Mr. Rajiv Mittal, on receiving the payment, the University was required to make available 65% of the fee collected from the students of the Centre to Centre Coordinator to meet the recurring and non-recurring expenses of the Centre including honorarium of the Centre coordinator. This amount has not been received by the Centre coordinator or by the society. Whatsoever amount has been received has been duly incorporated in the chart. Society has deposited amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- which is lying with the University. It has also borne the expenses to run the centre, teach the students and meet other administrative and running expenses. Even the centre coordinator was appointed by the University. It was the duty of the University to conduct examinations and award degrees, diploma certificates and recognition. According to the Judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Prof. Yashpal & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh on 11.2.05, performance of the contract between them and the complainants to impart degrees or diploma certificates has become impossible. If they would conduct the examinations to impart degrees or diplomas then there would be contempt of court and their act would be illegal. As per provisions of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, a contract to do an act which after the contract is made, becomes impossible and void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful. Further more as per paragraph No. 45 of the Judgement, the State Government may take appropriate measures to have such institutions affiliated to the already existing State Universities in Chhattisgarh. In this manner, it was the responsibility of the State Government of Chhattisgarh to protect the interest of the students. Nothing has been done by Chhattisgarh Government. As per Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court if any dispute regarding the implementation of the contents of paragraph 45 of the Judgement arises, party would be at liberty to approach the High Court. As per amendment dated 30.6.04, the State Government of Chhattisgarh got deposited an amount of 2 Crores from opposite party No. 2 as endowment fund which was created out of the contribution of the private Universities and 2% of the tuition fee charged from the students from out side the State of Chhattisgarh. It was meant for utilisation for the completion of courses, conducting of exams and awarding of degrees in case, if due to any reason, the private Universities were derecognised. Even in the prospectus it was made clear that fee collected from the students would not be refunded. According to them, complaint is false and frivolous. They admit that opposite party No. 2 was established under the provisions of Niji Kshetra Vishawvidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 of Chhattisgarh and it was notified in extraordinary Gezettle No. 221 of 9.9.02 by Government of Chhattisgarh. One year B. Ed. full time regular course/programme alongwith other programmes of education were started by the university. University was running its Off-campus University Education Centre at the premises of Tribhuvan Education and Welfare Society, Bathinda, Punjab. Sh. Rajiv Mittal was appointed Centre Coordinator by University to look after the day to day functioning, academic and financial monitoring. He was working as per the instructions and work assigned to him by State Coordinator or the University. He made enrollment and registration of students. He also collected fee, sold prospectus, provided syllabus and other relevant documents. No representation was made by them to the complainant. Centre Coordinator of the University has deposited Rs. 7,50,200/- in the discharge of his duties. Society did not retain any amount with it. They deny that premises of the Society were congested and there was no adequate and qualified teaching staff. Complainants had filed similar complaint against the University which was dismissed. They admit that University had conducted/taken examination of B. Ed students for the year 2003-2004. Duty of the Society was to provide premises for conducting the examinations. It was also ready and willing to provide its premises in future whenever asked to do so. Refund if any is to be made by the University. They made efforts to get justice for the complainants. Letters were written to the University, State Government of Chhattisgarh, Education Minister and President of India etc., Students of Off-campus were also requested to cooperate with them to file a joint complaint before the Honb'le High Court of Chhattisgarh, but none came forward. They deny that they have duped the complainants in any manner and have spoiled their precious year. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Complaint against opposite party No. 1(a) & 2 has been dismissed vide order dated 25.1.08 passed by this Forum.<br /> 5. Registered A.D. post notice was issued to opposite party No. 3 on 27.8.07. A.D. was received by one of its officials. No-one came present on its behalf. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.9.07.<br /> 6. In support of their averments contained in the complaint, complainants have produced in evidence four affidavits i.e. of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Sh. Prem Singh, Ms. Monika and Smt. Santosh Rani (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4) respectively and photocopies of payment receipts (Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-24)<br /> 7. In rebuttal on behalf of the opposite parties No. 1(b) and (c) affidavit of Sh. Pardeep Malik (Ex. R-1), photocopy of provisional certificate (Ex. R-2), photocopy of Memorandum of understanding (Ex. R-3), photocopies of demand drafts (Ex. R-4 to Ex. R-16) and photocopies of payment receipts (Ex. R-17 & Ex. R-18) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 9. Mr. Bhukkal, learned counsel for the complainants argued that complainants have deposited Rs. 1,28,600/- with opposite party No. 1 towards enrollment fee etc., for B Ed course for registration of their admission with opposite party No. 2. They were attending the classes. There was no adequate and qualified teaching staff. Similarly there was no other facilities for proper functioning of the classes of the B. Ed course. They were told that examination of B. Ed. course would be held in April/May, 2005, but opposite parties did not issue roll numbers nor examination was held. He further argued that opposite party No. 1 continued B. Ed classes for a short period and thereafter classes were stopped all of a sudden. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties no. 1 & 2. One precious year of the complainants has been spoiled. He also drew our attention to the affidavits Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4 and the payment receipts copies of which are Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-24.<br /> 10. Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 (b) and (c) argued that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1(b) & (c) stands proved.<br /> 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 12. Earlier Consumer Complaint No. 75 of 27.3.06 preferred by the complainants was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. They had moved an application for withdrawl of the complaint with permission to file a fresh one. Their plea was that some events had come to their knowledge after filing of that complaint. One of them was that Mr. Rajiv Mittal had gone abroad after handing over the charge of the Off-campus at Bathinda to opposite parties i..e. Mr. Pardeep Kumar Malik and Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma. Despite this, complainants have not given the correct address of Mr. Rajiv Mittal in this complaint. His address is as was in the earlier complaint. This complaint against Mr. Rajiv Mittal and opposite party No. 2 i.e. University has been dismissed. Two members of opposite party No. 1 i.e. Mr. Pardeep Malik and Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma have been arrayed as opposite party No. 1(b) and 1(c) as partners of opposite party No. 1 Society. No other member of the Society has been impleaded. Perusal of the record reveals that opposite party No. 1 (b) & (c) are merely sleeping partners/members of the Society. Ex. R-2 is the copy of the Provisional Certificate dated 4.7.03 issued by opposite party No. 2 regarding its Off-campus University Education Centre (Code No. PB-07) at Tribhuvan Education Society, Bhatinda, Punjab for imparting instructions in B. Ed and other courses mentioned in it. Ex. R-3 is the copy of the Memorandum of Understanding according to which opposite party No. 2 was to appoint a Centre Coordinator on recommendation of State Coordinator to look after the day-to-day functioning, academic and financial monitoring to assure quality education at the centre in the course assigned to it. This Memorandum of Understanding has been arrived at between the University and the Society through Mr. Rajiv Mittal, Centre Coordinator. Fee of the students as prescribed by the University was to be collected by the Centre Coordinator through demand draft in favour of the University. It was to be deposited by him in the account of the University in the bank. Substantial work of the Centre was to be conducted by the Centre Coordinator. In this case, Mr. Rajiv Mittal was the Centre Coordinator. He was collecting fee from the students and was sending the same to the University as per Memorandum of Understanding. Complainant against him and the University has been dismissed.<br /> 13. Opposite party No. 1 i.e. Society provided the premises to the Off-campus University Education Centre of the University. Appointment of Faculty and supporting staff of the University was to be made on contract as per norms and procedure laid down by the University from time to time. Allegation of the complainants that teaching staff was not qualified has not gone beyond the stage of allegation. Similarly other allegation that requisite facilities were not available in the premises of opposite party No. 1 has not been proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence. So far as affidavits Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4 are concerned, they stand amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Pardeep Malik. They have not explained what were the norms of the University regarding staff and the amenities for running the classes of B. Ed. Similarly they have not disclosed as to what should be the qualifications of teaching staff. They have not made clear that their education qualifications and experience were less than the norms regarding qualification and experience prescribed by the University. It was the responsibility of opposite party No. 2 to take the examinations and award degrees/diploma certificates and recognition. In view of the observations of their Lordships in the case Prof. Yashpal and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 2005(1) Judicial Reports (Supreme Court) 311 performance of contract of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 with the complainants to impart degrees or diploma certificates and to hold examinations has become impossible. All notifications issued by the State Government of Chhatisgarh in the Gazettle in the purported exercise of power under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam 2002 notifying the Universities were quashed. It has further been held by their Lordships that Universities would cease to exist. In such a situation how could opposite parties No. 1 & 2 conduct the examination of B. Ed course to impart degrees/diploma certificates against the order passed by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Had they conducted the examination for the purpose of issuing degrees/diploma certificates, there would have been contempt of court. Contract has become frustrated due to the Judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It being so, it is difficult to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> 14. Ex. R-4 to Ex. R-16 are the copies of the demand drafts. A perusal of them reveals that the amount collected by the Centre Coordinator i.e. Mr. Rajiv Mittal was sent to the University. Ex. R-17 & Ex. R-18 are the copies of the receipts according to which Authorised Signatory of Punjab State Coordinator of the University received Rs. 1,50,000/- and 2,000/- respectively from opposite party No. 1 Society. According to the Memorandum of Understanding, University was to make available 65% of the fee collected from the students of the Centre to the Centre Coordinator to meet the recurring and non-recurring expenses of the centre including the Honorarium of the Centre Coordinator. There is no document that opposite party No. 2 i.e. the University made available this 65% of the fee collected from the students to the Centre Coordinator. Premises of the Society were made available for running classes and holding the examinations etc. It does not stand proved that opposite parties No. 1(b) (c) have derived any benefit. In these circumstances it cannot be said that they are deficient in rendering service to the complainants.<br /> 15. As per paragraph 45 of the Judgement in the case Prof. Yashpal and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Supra), directions was given by their Lorships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the State of Chhatisgrh to take appropriate measures to have such Institutions affiliated to the already existing State Universities in Chhattisgarh. This direction was given keeping in view the interest of students and also Section 33 & 34 of the Act which contemplate dissolution of the sponsoring body and liquidation of a University whereunder responsibility has to be assumed by the State Government. In other words, appropriate steps were to be taken by the State Government of Chhattisgarh to affiliate the Institutions with already existing State Universities in Chhattisgarh after the quashment of some Universities in view of the Judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is nothing on the record that this has been done. Moreover, it was to be done by the State Government of Chhattisgarh and not by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. In paragraph 46 of the Judgement further direction of their Lordships is that the parties would be at liberty to approach the High Court if any dispute arises in the implementation of the directions. Instead of approaching the Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh, complainants have knocked the door of this Forum concerning the matter in controversy.<br /> 16. Complaint against opposite parties No. 1(a) & 2 has already been dismissed. Complainants have failed to establish any deficiency in service even on the part of opposite parties No. 1(b) & (c). Accordingly, complaint is dismissed even against them. Parties are left to bear their own cost. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 31-03-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member