Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/38

Pritpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

VHV Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sahil Sharma Adv.

21 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:38 dated 16.01.2019.                                                 Date of decision: 21.12.2022. 

 

Pritpal Singh aged about 23 years son of Sh. Joginder Singh (Himmat Pure Wale), Resident of Gill Nagar, Link Road, Mullanpur, Ludhiana.                                                                                                        ..…Complainant

•  

1. VMV Enterprises, MC No.3624-B/18, Sears Complex, Level IV, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Adjoining Amartax, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Authorized signatory Sh. Vishal Bhutani,
2. Dinesh Sood,
3. Kuljinder Singh Sidhu, Both partners of Orane International Unicorn Business (OIUB), having its office at SCO No.232, 233, 234, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
4. OLX School of Multimedia, Corporate Office at Seaz Complex, 4^th Floor, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Director/Principal/Authorized Representative Sh. Vishal Bhutani.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sahil Sharma, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sahil Shori, Advocate.

 

 

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of the unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that the complainant passed 10+2 class in the year 2012-13 and for further studies, the complainant came across an advertisement issued by OP1 that they were admitting students in different courses like B.Sc. Animation and Multimedia, short diploma courses etc. on behalf of Karnataka State Open University. After reading the advertisement, the complainant contacted the office of OP1 who stated him that they had tie up with OXL School of multimedia  and also with Orane International Unicorn Business, Chandigarh which further had tie up with Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd. Believing the information given by the officials of OP1, the complainant supplied all the documents such as certificate of +2 along with detail mark sheet to Vishal Bhutani, an official of OP1  for getting admission of complainant in a degree course in B.Sc Animation and Multimedia for the year 2013. As per the demand of OP1, the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.2,29,500/- as total fee for degree in B.Sc Animation and Multimedia. The complainant used to pay the fee to OP2 in installments and OP1 received a sum of Rs.1,88,500/- from the complainant. The complainant appeared in exams for the year 2013-14 at the premises of OP1. After the examination in the year 2013, the complainant was handed over one statement of marks, B.Sc in Animation and Multimedia first year examination bearing serial No.M140831703 dated 15.05.2014. Thereafter, the complainant appeared for the second year examination but OP1 did not supply the certificate/detail marks sheet for the second year. The OPs did not conduct the examination of third year. As per the directions by Vishal Bhutani, an official of OP1, the complainant contacted the partners of Orane International Unicorn Business i.e. OP2 and OP3 at Chandigarh and also contacted Ramesh Kumar, Exam Controller of Orane International Unicorn Business who issued one letter dated 26.04.2016 stating that he had nothing to do with the students and the partners namely Dinesh Sood and Kuljinder Singh Sidhu who can solve the problems of the complainant. The complainant later on checked the status/result on the website of Karnataka State Open University, Mysore and came to find that his number was not mentioned in the admission list of the students which caused suspicion in the mind of the complainant. On further enquiry, the complainant found that the documents issued by OP1 were forged and fabricated and the same were issued by OP1 in connivance with partners and officials of Orane International Unicorn Business. In this regard, the complainant has been cheated for a huge sum of Rs.1,88,500/- and a valuable period of three years of the complainant has been wasted. The complainant filed an application before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh but no action was taken. This amounts to deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund Rs.1,88,500/- along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written filed on behalf of OPs, it has been pleaded that the complainant visited the office for admission in B.Sc. Multimedia diploma + degree course and took admission on 15.06.2013 and joined the institute on 21.06.2013. It has, however, been denied if the officials of OP1 made a false statement that they had connection with Orane International Pvt. Ltd., Mindtrek Edu-tech or with Karnataka State Open University. According to the OPs, the complainant took admission in the educational institute of the OPs. The full fee for diploma/degree was Rs.2,29,500/- out of which diploma fee was Rs.1,39,500/-  and the degree fee was Rs.90,000/-. The complainant paid only Rs.1,88,500/-  and a sum of Rs.40,500/- was outstanding. The course was for a period of three years out of which the diploma course was of two years and the remaining one year for the degree. The complainant has himself admitted that 80% of the course was completed and he also received the diploma certificate from the OPs. The reason for not conducting the examination of third year degree course was that UGC has stopped long distance educational courses vide notification dated 21.09.2015. As a result, the OPs were not able to continue the degree course in which the degree was to be provided by Karnataka State Open University. The OPs have further pleaded that in the year 2013, they started running long distance education academic programs in various courses with the help of National Coordinators Mindtek Edu-tech Pvt. Ltd. which had a MOU with Karnataka State Open University for providing various types of courses and degrees by way of long distance educational institutes of India. The branch office of National Coordinator is at Mindtek Edu-Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana. It has further been pleaded by the OPs that the National Coordinator approached the OPs in the month of March-April 2013 for providing various educational courses and degrees from KSOU (Karnataka State Open University) which were approved by the UGC. He further showed a memorandum of understanding between Karnataka State Open University, Manasagangotri, Mysore and Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd. The coordinator also showed the OPs various documents relating to the distance education degree courses with educational institutions across various parts of India from where they provided courses and degrees to the students. The memorandum of understanding dated 19.03.2012 between Karnataka State Open University and Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd. revealed that the coordinator was linked with the said university. The course opted by the complainant was mentioned at serial No.158 of MOU. On 02.04.2013, the National Coordinator of Karnataka State Open University was sent approval letter dated 02.04.2013 issued to the Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd. in which list of approved centers were mentioned and the name of Orane International Unicorn Business (OIUB) was mentioned at serial No.287. In this manner, it is evident that the Vice Chancellor of Karnataka State Open University had approved the establishment of study center of the OPs on 01.04.2013. It is clearly mentioned that the Central/State Govt. Universities can conduct courses through distance mode in accordance with the provisions of their respective Acts after the approval of UGC. The UGC had approved Karnataka State Open University from year 2007-2013 to run the distance education degree courses mentioned at serial No.67 of Annexure-A5. Therefore, it was the duty of National Coordinator of Karnataka State Open University to issue the degree courses of the students. The degree was to be issued by the University through their National Coordinator (Mindtrek) Gurgaon. It was only after getting approval from the Karnataka State Open University through the coordinator, the OPs started taking admission of the students in various courses from year 2013.

3.                It is further submitted in the written statement that the complainant took admission in the year 2013 in B.Sc. Animation and Multimedia course which was a full diploma and degree course. The complainant completed first year examination in the year 2013-2014 and then appeared in second year in 2014-2015. On 21.09.2015, Karnataka State Open University issued one notification stating that the university has decided to withdraw all the programmes offered by collaborative institutions and the study centers of Karnataka State Open University outside and within the territory of Karnataka state. After getting the notification, the OPs immediately contacted with National coordinator of Karnataka State Open University and he assured the OPs that the students, who had taken the admission before notification dated 21.09.2015 would get their degrees of all 3 years. After the notification dated 21.09.2015, the OP immediately stopped taking admission of students. The OPs even issued one legal notice dated 23.01.2016 to the Coordinator (Mindtrek) to provide degrees to the students of Karnataka State Open University but no reply was received from the Coordinator. A legal notice dated 03.02.2016 was issued to Karnataka State Open University for not providing degrees to the students of various courses. When no reply was received to the notice dated 03.02.2016, another notice dated 09.03.2016 was sent. Thereafter, a representative of the OPs visited Karnataka State Open University and the officials of the university showed all the notifications in which all the long distance educational courses outside the state had been discontinued but he assured that the students who taken the admission prior to the notification would get degrees after continuation of recognition from UGC. The university got one public notice issued in newspapers dated 15.04.2016 stating clearly that the university would issue a separate notification after getting continuation of recognition from UGC and the students and their parents were requested to wait for further notification by the university. However, thereafter, nothing was received from the national coordinator of the university. The OPs filed a criminal case against the national coordinator under Section 406/420/463/464/467/468/471/120-B IPC with Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh. According to the OPs, the complainant completed 24 months diploma course from 3 years and the certificate of diploma was to be provided by the OPs which the complainant has received. The complainant even lodged complaint against the OPs in Sector 34 P.S. Chandigarh and also two more places i.e. Police Station Bathinda and E.O. Wing Ludhiana but no fault on the part of the OPs was found. No fraud has been committed by the OPs with the complainant and the courses in which the complainant had taken admission have been discontinued by UGC and Karnataka State Open University. Moreover, the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer as the education is not a commodity. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record Ex. C1 copy of certificate dated 02.07.2016, Ex. C2 is the copy of fee performa, Ex. C3 and Ex. C4 are the copies of letter written by the complainant and others to the Director, OXL School of Multimedia, Ludhiana, Ex. C5 is the copy of certificate dated 10..03.2016, Ex. C6 is the copy of letter dated 26.04.2016, Ex. C7 is the copy of complaint written to DGP, Punjab, Ex. C8 is the copy of the inquiry report of E.O. Wing, Ludhiana and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Deepak Kumar, Operational Manager of OXL School of Multimedia along with documents Ex. A1 copy of MOU, Ex. A2 is the copy of list of centres of Karnataka State Open University, Ex. A3 is the copy of letter dated 09.04.2013, Ex. A4 is the copy of UGC issued on August 2014, Ex. A5 is the copy of letter of recognition, Ex. A6 is the copy of notification dated 21.09.2015, Ex. A7 to Ex. A9 are the legal notices dated 23.01.2016, 03.02.2016, 09.03.2016, Ex. A10 is the copy of complaint 31.08.2016 written to SSP, Chandigarh, Ex. A11 is the copy of DDR No.37 dated 24.07.2017 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 represented to him that they had a tie up/collaboration along with Orane International Unicorn Business (OP3). It was also represented to the complainant that Orane International Unicorn Business had further tie up with Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd. On the basis of the said representation made by the Ops, the complainant took admission in three year degree course of B.Sc. Animation and Multimedia for the year 2013 with OP4 being run by OP1 and also paid a sum of Rs.1,88,500/- to OP1 out of total fee of Rs.2,29,500/- demanded by OP1. The complainant appeared for the examination for the year 2013 as well as for 2014 at the premises of OP1. He was supplied mark sheet of the first year bearing serial No.M140831703 dated 15.05.2014 but second year mark sheet was not supplied and the examination of third year was not conducted at all. When the complainant contacted OP1, OP2 and OP3 at their office situated at Chandigarh, he was issued one letter dated 26.04.2016 by a representative of OP2 and OP3 namely Ramesh Kumar. When the complainant checked his status on the website at Karnataka State Open University, his number was not found mentioned in the admission list of students. This shows that OP1 issued forged and fabricated documents in-connivance with OP2 and OP3.

8.                The factum of the complainant having been admitted in B.Sc. Multimedia plus degree course on 15.05.2014 is not denied by the OPs It has also been admitted by the OPs that the total fee of diploma/degree course was Rs.2,29,500/- and the complainant paid Rs.1,88,500/- and a sum of Rs.40,500/- is still pending towards him. According to the OPs, the complainant completed two year diploma course and was issued certificates and the reason for not conducting third year degree course was that the UGC stopped long distance education course after 21.09.2015. Therefore, Karnataka State Open University was not able to continue the degree course and the degree was to be provided by this university through its coordinate Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd.

9.                It is the definite case of the complainant that after the exams for the year 2013, he was handed over one statement of marks B.Sc. Animation and Multimedia and further that OP1 did not supply the certificate detail marks for the second year nor the OPs conducted examination of the third year. The complainant has also claimed that on enquiry, it was found that the documents issued by OP1 to the complainant are forged and fabricated. Interestingly, this part of the claim made by the complainant stands proved on record from a document placed on record by the OPs themselves. In this regard, a reference can be made to the copy of the complaint Ex. A10 which was filed by OP2 with Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh against the director of Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon under Section 406/420/463/464/467/468/471/120-B IPC. In the complaint Ex. A10, it has been alleged by OP2 that after the examination of first year of various courses approved by Karnataka State Open University only some students received their DMC(detail marks certificate) through university coordinator Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd. but DMCs of some of the students were still pending It is further stated in the complaint Ex. A10 that in the year 2014, examination of second year of various courses, the DMCs of the students had not been received till date. In para no.13 of the complaint Ex. A10, it is further mentioned that OP2 has been requesting the university coordinator i.e. Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd. to provide DMCs of first year and second year of the students so that they can appear in the examination for the third year. It is further mentioned in the complaint Ex. A10 that the students had paid higher fee for their courses and they have right to receive their DMCs and degrees. It is further mentioned in para no.22, 23 and 24 of the complaint Ex. A10 that one employee of OP2 visited Karnataka State Open University to verify the results provided by Mindtrek Edu The Pvt. Ltd. and to take pending DMCs/degrees of students of first and second year and he was shocked to see that the students had not even been registered with Karnataka State Open University whose examination and DMCs were pending till then. It is further stated that when the results provided by the coordinator were shown and were verified from the university, it was found that no such students Ids were registered in their records. From whatever has been stated in the complaint Ex. A10, it  emerges that DMCs of the second year were not provided by the OPs and when they verified from the university, the students were not even got registered in that university.

10.              It is not disputed by the OPs that the Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd. was the National Coordinator of Karnataka State Open University which means that OP2 and OP3 themselves did not have any direct affiliation with the university and they have been acting only on behalf of National coordinator Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd. It was only later on found by the OP2 and OP3 that they have been cheated by the so called National Coordinator as the DMCs/degrees were not provided by Mindtrek Edu The Pvt. Ltd. and on verification, the students were not even found to have registered with Karnataka State Open University. Being the service provider, the OPs were under an obligation to ensure that the courses being offered by them to the students were under proper and legal affiliation of a university which also fulfilled the rules, regulations and other norms of University Grant Commission. However, in the instant case, no such care or caution seems to have been taken care by the OPs who till the end did not even come to know that the students being enrolled by them in their institution were even not got registered with the university by the National Coordinator i.e. Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd.  and all these facts became known to the OPs at much later stage i.e. in the year 2016 when a complaint Ex. A10 was filed by them with the Chandigarh police on 31.08.2016. Thus, the OPs have miserably failed in their duty towards the hapless students with the result that the valuable time and money of the complainant wasted in the process. The complainant could neither secure a degree nor diploma and at the same time wasted his precious time which he could have pursued his study elsewhere in a proper and legal educational institution. This clearly amounts deficiency of service on the part of the OPs who admittedly obtained a sum of Rs.1,88,500/- from the complainant but miserably failed to provide service expected of them.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,88,500/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Pritpal Singh Vs VMV Enterprises                                 CC/19/38   

Present:       Sh. Sahil Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Sahil Shori, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,88,500/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.