Delhi

East Delhi

CC/442/2015

JAI SHANKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

XLRI - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jul 2017

ORDER

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

             CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.    442/2015

                                                                                                   Date of Institution              15/07/2015

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               07/07/2017        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       10/07/2017                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr. Jai Shankar Vishwkarma,  adult 

s/o- Videshi Mistry Vishwakarma     

R/o- K-8, 1^st Floor, Lajpat Nagar – 4, 

New Delhi -110024…………………………………………...…………….Complainant

                                                                    Vs

1-XLRI

Xavier School o0f Management

1^st Floor, Library Building

Circuit House Area(East), Jamshedpur-831001

 

Also at-

K R Mangalam School

G K II, New Delhi 110024

 

2- Mr A K Pani - Asso. Dean - XLRI

Circuit House Area(East), Jamshedpur-831001………………..Respondents

 

Quorum   Sh Sukhdev  Singh      President

                  Dr P N Tiwari                Member

                  Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member       

                     

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

 

Brief Facts of the case      

                                                                                         

The complainant, Jai Shankar Vishwakarma, wanted to pursue post graduate certificate in human resource management, in short called PGCHRM, from XLRI having its head office as Jamshedpur and its various study branches all over India. This certificate course was of one year duration having course fee Rs 2,15,000/- to be paid in three installments. He applied online and after completing all the formalities for admission, received email on 10/06/2013 from OP for his selection in the PGCHRM course. As the option of choosing study centre was available, so complainant took admission at Greater Kailash, New Delhi. As its location was not suitable, so complainant opted study centre at Sector 15 Noida through email which was allotted accordingly by OP1. Entire fee was paid up to 01/03/2014.

OP1 sent an email on 31/03/2014 stating that complainant’s documents were not valid and his admission stand cancelled.  A revert email was sent by complainant inquiring the reason for cancelation of his admission when he had paid entire course fee. He also asked to give inquiry report on which his documents were termed as invalid.  When no reply was received, felt cheated and considering illegal and unfair act of OP, filed this complaint claiming refund of entire fee paid with 18% interest and compensation Rs 2 lacs for harassment and mental agony besides Rs 25,000/- as litigation charges.  

OP submitted their written statement denying all the allegations as incorrect and wrongly alleged.  OP submitted that few documents were not correct as there was calculation mistake seen in mark sheets of 3+ B.Com (Hons) degree course. So, after carefully verifying from Magadh University Bodh Gaya, clarification was asked through RTI from college also. It was revealed that complainant had not undergone any such degree course at BS College, Danapur has no such degree course in the college. Hence, it was confirmed that the documents were fake and complainant had misled OP for taking admission in the said course, thereby his admission was cancelled with immediate effect. It was submitted that admission form had clearly written that final admission would be after proper verification of documents and if found incorrect or fake, admission would be cancelled without any notice and fee deposited would not be refunded. Thus complainant violated rules and regulations and academic discipline of the Institution besides submitted fake documents at the time of admission at OP office, so his admission was cancelled. It was also stated that there was no provision of refund of fee what so ever it was paid to the OP for any course.  

It was also submitted that complainant had applied for ‘Virtual Interactive Leaning” in the year 2013-14 for PGCHRM 16 course as per Anne. R1. When it was proved that admission was taken on fake documents, admission was cancelled immediately and no fee was refunded as per annex. R2. OP submitted Academic Information System under disciplinary system at the institution as Anne. R3. It was also stated that repeated study centre was allotted on the convenience of complainant from Jamshedpur to New Delhi and then greater Noida to Chennai without charging centre changing fee. He gave one written exam at Chennai and based on his  conduct and indisciplinary attitude, he was awarded ‘F’ grade during the process of verification of documents as per annex. R5. After detail inquiry under RTI and verification of documents by OP office, admission was cancelled as per Anne. R6 and R7.  So his admission was cancelled from 31/03/2014 on the ground of fake documents. OP had annexed all the zerox of documents as annexures from R1 to R14 and after duly verification, admission was cancelled which was clearly written in their prospectus and fee deposition forms that cancellation of admission could happen at any time after the completion of verification. Hence, this complaint may be dismissed which was devoid of any merit.  

Complainant submitted his rejoinder with evidence on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the stated facts and evidences were true and correct as per his complaint and there was no evidence hidden or submitted incorrect.

OP also submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr Pranabesh Ray and Prof A K Pani and affirmed that all the submitted evidence were correct and true based on the official record of OP office.

OP also submitted written arguments where citations has been taken as reference having law lay down for cancellation of admission on the basis of fake documents, if submitted by the candidate/complainant besides sections of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as Sec. 26 of the Act for dismissing the complaint as it was false, frivolous and vexatious.

It was also stated that Education was not a service under Sec. 2(d) of the Act as held by Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs Rajappa & others (AIR 1978 SC 548) where it was held that-

‘‘though Educational Institutions carry out a number of activities for its administration including that of collecting fee for holding classes, conducting examinations, evaluation of marks and also declaration of results, all are components of concept of imparting education and in my view, they are not severable holding that while collection of fee for holding classes is a service rendered by the educational institutions for consideration, the rest are statutory functions not depending on contract or hiring of services of educational institutions.” 

Apex court also had similar view in Unnikrishanan vs State of AP (1993)1SCC645 and here it was said that -

“Education has never been commerce in this country. Making it one opposed to the ethos and traditions and sensibilities of education has never been treated a trade or business in this country since time immemorial. It has been treated as a religious duty”.

Similar view was taken by NCDRC in Registrar, University of Bombay vs Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (FA 284/1992) I (1994) CPJ 146(NC). Here also it stated that -

“Checking mark sheets or re evaluation answer books is not performing a ‘service’ which had been hired or availed of for consideration”

Under this reference, OP further cited case as Maharshi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 1569 where Apex court placed reliance on Bihar School Examination Board vs Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483 and said that -

“Education is not a commodity and that such matters cannot be entertained by the Forums under the Act. Education Institutions are not providing any kind of service; therefore, in matter of admission, fee etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service”.

In Central Airmen selection Board vs Surendra Kumar Das 2003 (1) SCC 152, Supreme Court held that -

“a person who has invoked the principle of promissory estoppel and who has misled the authorities by making a false statement, is not entitled to any relief.”

This principle was also held in the matter of Vikas Dixit vs Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University  by Punjab and Haryana High Court on Jan 13, 2014 in CWP 23374 of 2013.

OP has taken a right decision in this case and this complaint be dismissed.     

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels, file perused and order was reserved.

We have gone through the facts and evidence on affidavit, it was clear that complainant had taken admission at OP institute and opted study centre of his choice thrice which was permitted by OP without charging any transfer fee.

After going through all the documents submitted by complainant and process adopted by OP for verification at their office where they noticed that all three mark sheets had calculation mistake pertaining to B.Com (Hons) degree on which complainant sought admission in the said course, was fake documents and cancellation of his admission was as per terms and conditions laid down in the prospectus and in admission form.

After getting RTI reply from B S College, from where B Com (Hons) was done and clarification from Magadh University, it was revealed that no such course was taught in that college and documents were fake. Based on reply from University, OP cancelled the admission of complainant with immediate effect. Also as per their prospectus details, no fee would be refunded in such cases, was duly intimated to the complainant.      

This case pertaining to Education institution, so, we have analyzed legal issues and related higher courts citation where law was very clearly laid down pertaining to admission on fake documents leads to cancellation of admission immediately. Thus we have come to the conclusion that complainant could not establish deficiency of OP that his admission was wrongly cancelled. More so, he was not entitled for refund of his course fee also which has been clearly mentioned in admission form.

Hence this complaint is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed without any order to cost.

The order copy be sent to the parties as per act and file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                                                       Mrs Harpreet Kaur - Member                                         

                                      

                                                Shri  Sukhdev Singh - President