State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indian Institute Of Aircraft ... vs Mita Sengupta on 12 January, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 12-01-2007 Appeal No. A-849/2006 (Arising from the order dated 05-08-2006 passed by District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.DF-VII/227/06) 1. The Director, Appellants Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering Through Mahipalpur Extension, Mr. Manoj, New Delhi. Advocate. 2. The Administration Incharge Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi. Versus Mrs. Mita Sengupta, Respondent 143, 2nd Floor, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi-110014. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Mr. Mahesh Chandra - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 5th August, 2006 the appellant has been found guilty for deficiency in service as well as for unfair trade practice in as much as that the appellant misrepresented and misled the respondent that the course for which she was admitted was B.E. Degree course whereas it was not B.E. Degree course, and been directed to refund Rs. 1,42,000/- towards the fee charged for admission of her two daughters and Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The allegations of the respondent leading rise to the impugned order, in brief, were that on reading advertisement of appellant in the newspaper approached the appellant-Institute of Aircraft, New Delhi for admission of her two daughters for B.E. degree courses in Aeronautical Engineering. One of the daughters of the respondent namely Dahliya Sengupta wanted admission in B.Tech Degree course of Aeronautical Engineering while the second daughter Zinnia Sengupta wanted to pursue Aircraft Maintenance Engineering Course. The respondent was told that only two seats were vacant and if she wanted her daughters to be admitted, she should get them admitted immediately. The respondent deposited fee for admission of her two daughters but later on learnt that she had been misled to believe that the appellant Institute was holding degree course in Aeronautical Engineering though there was no such course and the appellant-Institute was admitting students for Associate Membership Examinations. Since her daughter Dahlia Sengupta was interested in B.Tech Degree course of Aeronautical Engineering, the appellant-Institute was requested to refund the fee charged from her as she had only attended one class but her request was declined. Her second daughter Zinnia Sengupta also could not pursue the course and did not attend the classes since there was no bus service from her residence to the appellant-Institute nor was the course recognized as a degree course. At the time of admission she was promised bus service from her residence to the Institute. The respondent pleaded that since the appellant has not rendered any service, it is liable to refund the fee charged for admission of her two daughters amounting to Rs. 1,42,000/- and compensation for causing harassment to her.
4. As against this the version of the appellant was that there was no misrepresentation and that the respondent admitted her daughters after going through the prospectus in which it was clearly mentioned that the Institute is holding course in AMeASI which course is at par with Bachelor Degree in Aeronautical Engineering from any Indian University. The appellant filed copy of the Notification vide which Ministry of Education recognized the course of AMeASI for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts treating the said course at par with Bachelor Degree in Aeronautical Engineering. As regards non-availability of bus service from the residence of the respondent to the Institute the appellant has not given any categorical answer but pleaded that the reasons given by the respondent for withdrawing her daughters from the courses are incorrect and for some extraneous reasons the respondent wants to withdraw her daughters from the courses.
Denying any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-Institute also raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint.
5. So far as preliminary objections raised on behalf of the appellant are concerned, the same were well taken care of by the District Forum and there is little to add to what the District Forum said in this regard. As to the maintainability of the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction, the appellant-Institute is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and therefore the District Forum is competent to entertain the complaint.
Second objection that the complaint was not competent person to take action against the appellant-Institute for refund of the fee of her children is also not tenable as even if the complaint had been in the names of the daughters of the respondent still she was competent to represent them as authorized representative being their mother.
Similarly the objection regarding complaint being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, is also legally not available as the complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not civil suits. These are summary proceedings and are not covered by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. Any layman be literate or illiterate can file complaint of his grievance in his own words and therefore to raise such type of objection that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is not valid. If the complainant does not implead any person as party he does so at his own risk and peril.
6. On merits the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in spite of having held that the course offered by the appellant to the respondent was at par with Bachelor Degree in Aeronautical Engineering, the District Forum held the appellant guilty for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and secondly so far as the case of second daughter namely Zinnia Sengupta is concerned it is an after thought that she had difficulty in commuting from her residence to the Institute and this fact was very much in her knowledge while taking admission.
7. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the daughter who had taken admission in Bachelors Degree in Aeronautical Engineering came to know that it was not a course of Bachelor Degree as recognized by the duly authorized authority namely University and sought refund of the fees. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that the course was at par with Bachelor Degree in Aeronautical Engineering and even if it was mentioned so in the prospectus is self-defeating and squarely comes within the mischief of unfair trade practice.
8. Any Institute imparting training or coaching or certificates or degrees for any specific course has to specifically mention in the prospectus that the course being offered is a degree course like in the instant case was a course of Bachelor Degree in Aeronautical Engineering. Any such representation that such a course is equivalent to Bachelors Degree or is at par with Bachelors Degree itself is a misleading impression as the student always take it that the degree being offered is actually a Bachelor Degree whereas it was not Bachelor Degree.
9. Even the Notification by the Government in this regard that this course was at par with Bachelor Degree cannot come to the help of the appellant.
10. We have come across large number of such Institutes who are doling out the courses as if the course being floated by them are the Degree Courses or the Masters Degree whereas these are not and to represent in any manner that such courses are at par with Bachelors Degree or Masters Degree itself is unfair trade practice as such a representation has the element and ingredient of misleading nature as to the need for or the usefulness of such a certificate. If a person gets the impression that the course being undertaken by him is at par with the Bachelor Degree or Masters Degree he would labour under the belief that he would get proper placement as a degree holder get as well as the commensurate remuneration. In this regard the Notification of Government of India can also be termed as unfair and misleading.
11. In support of his contention that this course offered to the respondent was a course which was at par with the Bachelors Degree the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the lofty and high flying references that these courses were patronized by the first Prime Minister of this Country Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru and secondly that Indian Air Force, Union Public Service Commission, IIT and even abroad have recognsied these courses at par with Bachelor Degree in Aeronautical Engineering.
12. No Government authority can issue any notification for any private Institute saying that the course being offered by it particularly the courses like the one in question are such which are at par with the Bachelors Degree or Masters Degree such a notification is highly misleading and detrimental to the career prospects of the candidate. It appears that the Government functionaries are in hand and glove with such Institutes and issue such notifications.
13. We by this order hereby restrain all the Government agencies from giving any such notification or giving any such certificate to any Institute in the Country saying that the course being conducted or offered by such private Institutes are at par with Bachelors Degree or Masters course. No person should be kept under dark that the course being prosecuted by him is at par with Bachelor Degree whereas the words at par cannot give the meaning of actual course or actual degree. Such types of advertisement are nothing short of unfair trade practice and a sort of exploitation of the aspirant candidates. A candidate who prosecutes such type of courses when lands up for job and is told that this is not a Bachelor Degree or Masters Degree though it may be at par and therefore he will be given half of the salary or remuneration of a person who in possession of actual Bachelor or Master degree gets, he would get a shock and feel cheated.
14. There is nothing like at par or similar. Either it is a Degree course or Masters degree or it is not. To assign a status of at par to a Degree or Masters course is highly misleading and unfair as the impression the aspirant gets is that he would be possessing a Bachelors degree or Masters degree and would be eligible for the post for which those degrees are the requirement and it would fetch him the same remuneration as the actual degree of Bachelor or Master would fetch. But the reality is altogether different.
15. We also deprecate the practice of giving such certificate to private Institutes the importance of such a word with a prefect deemed or at par comes within the ambit of unfair trade practice as contemplated by sub-section (1)(r) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
16. We also deprecate such practice on the part of Air Force or any other authority of the country to give any such certificate to a private Institute which is not entitled to run a course which has nomenclature of Bachelors Degree or Masters Degree under the guise that the course being offered is at par with such courses.
17. Copy of this order be sent to the Secretary of Government of India of the concerned Ministry for its information otherwise the Government shall also be held jointly and severally liable for unfair trade practice with such Institutes who are hoodwinking the candidates by giving false and wrong representation that the course being conducted by the Institute is at par with the Bachelors or Masters Degree which are normally conducted by the duly authorized Universities of the Country and Government Institutes and also sent to Air Chief, Civil Aviation Secretary so that they will not in future indulge in such practice and will not issue such certificate to private Institutes.
18. Let copy of this order be sent to all the National Dailies for the benefit of the public at large and for the information of the Government or any other such authorities because practice of giving such certificate cannot rule out possibility of extraneous considerations.
19. Aforesaid reasons persuade us to dismiss the appeal being highly misconceived.
20. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
21. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
22. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
23. Announced on the 12th January, 2007 (Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Mahesh Chandra) Member jj