DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 62/2014

Shri Nishant Bhardwaj

S/o Shri V.R. Sharma,

R/o C-II/31, Lodhi Colony,

New Delhi-110003                  

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

The Director, VAG Infotech (P) Ltd.

D-42, South Extension Part-1,

New Delhi-110049.

                                                                           ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution             : 14.02.2014  Date of Order            : 25.02.2020

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. Briefly put, the facts as stated by the complainant are that the complainant approached VAG Infotech (P) Ltd. (in short the OP) in September, 2011 seeking admission for MBA Course in Chandra Mohan Jha University (CMJ) which is established in the State of Meghalaya. The entire course fee of Rs.40,000/- was paid to OP.  
   1. Complainant alleges that OP has illegally fleeced him of Rs.40,000/- as it is a fake University conducting MBA course without affiliation or accreditation to conduct distant education courses. The University is neither recognized nor does it have any legal right to offer courses out of campus.  It is further alleged that OP was not eligible to conduct examination for the course and award degree after having conducting the examination. The OP had conducted examination in the month of January, 2018 but till date result has not been declared because the University was fake having no legal force or recognition from the appropriate authority and as such the same was blacklisted as per the UGC official website attached as Annexure C-7. Upon having the said knowledge the complainant sought the refund of Rs.40,000/- paid towards fee, from OP which was declined by OP. Aggrieved by the circumstances, the complainant approached this Forum for directions to refund Rs.40,000/- which was paid towards fee of the course alongwith damages of Rs.2,30,000/- for harassment and litigation expenses.
2. Claim of the complainant has been controverted by OP by filing the written statement. OP has raised preliminary objection stating inter-alia that the complaint is not maintainable as it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that students/examinees are not consumers and the examination board/universities are not service provider and are not covered under Consumer Protection Act.
   1. It is next submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable for not impleading CMJ University as necessary party in the present complaint.   It is submitted that OP is only an Information Centre of CMJ University.  OP has been running an authorized Information Centre of CMJ University with a limited role to receive the application and to forward the same to the Universities which conducts the examination and issue certificates to the students as per its rules and guidelines.  OP further submits that OP has been running educational and information centre in association with many Universities all over India for last more than 17 years.  It is further submitted that OP was not aware of the allegations leveled by the complainant as the University till the month of April, 2013 had contacted OP and has issued many certificates and degrees to its students. It is next submitted  that the allegations as alleged by the complainant are false and premature as no official instruction has been issued by the University or by the State Govt. or  by the Court for closing the said University and it is not in the knowledge of OP.
   2.  It is further submitted that the complainant was permitted to sit in the examination and the marks-sheet and degree was issued by the University which was communicated by OP to the complainant. OP has denied receiving any notice from the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has no grievance against OP, the grievance if any of the complainant is with the University and as per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court the students of the said University can approach the State Govt. for their degrees and for all other purposes. It is next submitted that OP has not misrepresented the complainant and has not indulged in any unfair trade practice. Therefore it is prayed that the instant complaint be dismissed with cost.
3. Complainant has filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit. Evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Vineet Gupta is filed on behalf of OP.
4. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the complainant and OP.
5. Submissions made by the parties are heard and material placed on record is perused carefully.
6. OP has raised preliminary objections on the maintainability of the present complaint and has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Bihar School Education Board vs. Suresh Prasad Singh (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 483. In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “students/ examinees are not consumers and the Examination Boards/ Universities are not service providers and therefore are not covered under Consumer Protection Act.
7. OP in para-3 of the written statement has submitted that OP is only a Information Centre of the CMJ University with a limited role to receive the application and to forward the same to the University which conducts the examination and issues certificate to the students as per its Rules and Guidelines.  The role of OP as submitted by OP itself brings it under the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act. As per the role defined OP is neither imparting education nor providing any degrees to the students. Therefore, the present case is maintainable qua OP.
8. Now on the merits of the case it is complainant’s case that the complainant paid fee of Rs.40,000/- to OP for admission in an MBA Course. The complainant got enrolled in the said MBA Course which was affiliated to Chandra Mohan Jha University (CMJ) which operates from the State of Meghalaya. Thereafter, written examinations were conducted by the OP on behalf of CMJ University in the month of January, 2013 and the result of the same had not been declared till the date of filing of the present complaint. Complainant has alleged that CMJ University is not a recognized university and was not eligible to conduct examinations for the said course and award degrees thereafter.
9. Complainant in support of his case has filed copy of the extract of UGC official website annexed as Annexure-C/7, Annexure-C/8 and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CMJ Foundation & others vs. State of Meghalaya. The relevant portion of Annexure C/7, Annexure C/8 is reproduced as under:-

“The Principal Secretary to the Governor of Meghalaya vide letter No. GSMG/CMJU/82/2009/Vol.II/493 dated 12.06.2013 has informed that his Excellency the Governor of Meghalaya has recommended to the State Government of Meghalaya for dissolution of CMJ University in terms of Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009.”

“The Governor Secretariat and Government of Meghalaya have been requested to inform the decision taken as the UGC is receiving lot of queries about CMJ University and Validity of degrees already awarded by it.

The UGC is yet to receive any response from Governor Secretariat (Meghalaya) and Government of Meghalaya.”

                   From the above paragraphs it is evident that the Principal Secretary and UGC had recommended appropriate action against CMJ University by the State of Meghalaya but no action had yet been taken by Govt. of Meghalaya.

10.     Further the SLP filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court was disposed off with the direction that

“within three months from the date of order the State Government shall, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause against the action proposed to be taken, pass a speaking order under section 48 of 2009 Act.

The students whose admissions and degrees were declared illegal may also make representation to the State Government and seek an opportunity of hearing from it. The request made by them shall be sympathetically considered by the State Governments.”

11.     The documents relied upon above establish the fact that the State Government of Meghalaya was given three months time to decide the fate of CMJ University. There is nothing on record to indicate if any adverse order was passed by the State of Meghalaya against the University. To that extent, the complaint is premature.

12.     Complainant has failed to place on record any declaration that degree awarded to him is fake. Rather complainant has filed a letter dated 17.04.2017 of one Mr. Varun Sharma wherein Mr. Varun Sharma was given a show cause notice as to why his appointment letter should not be called back as the MBA degree from CMJ University filed by him was found to be deficient, forged and bogus by the bank (employer). The said letter has no relevancy in this case as why was the degree found to be deficient, forged or bogus of Mr. Varun Sharma is not explained.

13.     Moreover, complainant has not disputed OP’s averment that mark-sheet and degree was issued to the complainant. It is also not pleaded in the complaint if the complainant has availed the remedy provided to Students by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar School Education Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Singh (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 483 of filing a representation with the State of Meghalaya.

14.            Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency or unfair trade practice qua OP. Hence, we dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.  

Announced on 25.02.2020