State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Institute Of Hotel Management vs Gaurav Sharma on 16 April, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.329 of 2007.
Date of Institution: 02.03.2007.
Date of Decision: 16.04.2012.
1. National Institute of Hotel Management, 29, Dila Ram Bazar, Rajpur
Road, Dehradun-248001(Uttranchal), through its Director.
2. National Institute of Hotel Management, 29, Dila Ram Bazar, Rajpur
Road, Dehradun-248001(Uttranchal), through its Assistant-cum-
Administrator.
....Appellants.
Versus
1. Gaurav Sharma S/o Sh. Abhilash Kumar C/o Royal Model School,
College Road, Barnala, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur.
2. Institute of Advance Studies in Education (Deemed University) Gandhi
Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahar-301401, Rajasthan through its Registrar.
3. University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-
110002 through its Secretary.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
02.01.2007 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Present:- Sh. B.J. Singh, Advocate, counsel for the appellants.
Sh. Ajay Pal Parmar, Advocate for Sh. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.1.
Sh. Amit Rao, Advocate for Sh. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.2 & 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
National Institute of Hotel Management and another, appellants (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated
02.01.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum").
First Appeal No.329 of 2007 2
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Gaurav Sharma, respondent no.1/ complainant (hereinafter called as "respondent no.1") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"). It was pleaded that on the basis of the advertisement in 'The Tribune' in the month of April, 2005, given by the appellants regarding Hotel Management course which was read by respondent no.1 at Barnala, respondent no.1 sent the draft to the appellants from Barnala for the purpose of getting the prospectus and the appellants sent the prospectus to respondent no.1 at Barnala. Respondent no.1 after duly filling the columns of the prospectus, sent the same to the appellants along with Entrance Test fee of Rs.250/- from Barnala. The appellants sent the Roll No.2196 at Barnala and respondent no.1 appeared in the Entrance Test at Chandigarh and the result of the same also sent to respondent no.1 by the appellants at Barnala and asked the respondent no.1 to deposit the required admission fee.
3. Thereafter, respondent no.1 approached the appellants to enquire about the affiliation of their institution of the said course with any recognized university. The appellants replied that their institution is duly affiliated and the said course is duly authorized by recognized university and the documents regarding the same will be shown to respondent no.1 and advised him to deposit the fee.
4. Believing the assurances made by the appellants, respondent no.1 got admission in Three Years Dual Degree Course in Hotel Management and sent a draft of Rs.40,000/- bearing no.076545 dated 11.06.2005 of State Bank of Patiala from Barnala and thereafter paid a sum of Rs.43,400/- vide draft no.979863 dated 13.07.2005 of State Bank of Patiala branch Barnala, by hand and also paid a sum of Rs.11,000/- through draft no.577632 dated 08.08.2005 of Punjab & Sind Bank, branch Barnala by hand. The said amounts deposited by respondent no.1 included registration fee, first year course fee, IASE University fee, security, books, hostel charges, uniform etc. and also paid Rs.2500/- in cash, which included student kit. First Appeal No.329 of 2007 3
5. The appellants asked respondent no.1 to reach the institute on 25.08.2005, as the classes were to start on that date. On 25.08.2005, respondent no.1 reached the institution of the appellants and they made the arrangement for the stay of respondent no.1 along with five other students in a hotel named Pathik Hotel and respondent no.1 stayed in the said hotel from 22.08.2005 to 01.09.2005.
6. During this period, respondent no.1 regularly visited the said institution for studies and proper accommodation, but the appellants neither started course studies nor provided with proper accommodation/hostel facility. Respondent no.1 was also not supplied any student kit, books, uniform etc. Respondent no.1 also approached the appellants to know about the affiliation of the institution and the concerned course, but the same was never provided and the respondent no.1 was got tortured by the appellants through senior students. Respondent no.1 came back to Barnala and visited again the institution along with his father twice to know about the affiliation, but the appellants refused to show any such document.
7. Respondent no.1 on 06.10.2005 served a registered legal notice upon the appellants, but no reply was received. Earlier, respondent no.1 filed a complaint before the District Forum, which was withdrawn on 28.02.2006 with permission to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action. In that complaint, the appellants filed the reply, stating that the appellants are running their instititute under the name and style of National Institute of Hotel Management, duly authorized study centre, authorized by Institute of Advance Studies in Education, respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 is a deemed university of respondent no.3 as per Circular dated 09.08.2005. Respondent no.2 has not been permitted to affiliate any college, institute or to conduct any course through Distance Education Study Centre. The reply filed by the appellants in the previous complaint was false and against the law and facts and the study centre run by the appellants is not an authorized study centre and the degree issued is also not recognized and the said study centre First Appeal No.329 of 2007 4 is illegal as per the notice/circular of respondent no.3. The act and conduct of the appellants and respondents no.2 & 3 is against the law and facts and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It was prayed that the appellants be directed to refund the amount of Rs.96,900/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization, to pay Rs.3.00 lacs as compensation for loss of one year and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
8. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellants, preliminary objections were taken that the description of the appellants given by respondent no.1 in the complaint, is wrong and defective and the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The appellants have no office within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, nor any part of cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and the Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. As per prospectus concerning the course in question, it is specifically provided that the fee once paid is not refundable. The dispute between a student and educational institute is beyond the purview of the Act.
9. On merits, it was admitted that the prospectus was issued at Dehradun and result of admission test was declared at Dehradun. The complete information about the institution and its affiliation was fully detailed in the prospectus as well as it was displayed in the office of the appellants. There was no misinformation. The fee was paid by respondent no.1 at Dehradun after fully understanding the facts about the course and the institute and whatever information was sought by respondent no.1 or by any other student, the same was provided by the appellants. Proper arrangement for study of students and coaching was made and there was no complaint from any other student. Respondent no.1 left the institution without permission, rather without informing the appellants and the story has been concocted with ulterior motive. The receipt of legal notice was admitted. The appellants are duly authorized centre of respondent no.2 in consonance with the Govt. of India Notification dated 21.06.2002 duly gazetted on 17.07.2002. There is no First Appeal No.329 of 2007 5 restriction on respondent no.2 to establish Study Centres. Under Court orders, operation of Circular dated 09.08.2005 has been kept in abeyance and further admissions and classes are being held by the appellants under permission from respondent no.2. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
10. Respondents no.2 & 3 did not contest the complaint before the District Forum and were proceeded against exparte.
11. Rejoinder was filed in which assertions of the complaint were reiterated and that of the written reply were controverted.
12. Contesting the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
13. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the contesting parties, the learned District Forum observed that it was obligatory on the part of the opposite parties, especially appellants no.1 & 2 to prove that their degrees are recognized and they have well approved centres before they admit the students into the course. The District Forum has the jurisdiction, and allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to refund the deposited fee of Rs.96,900/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 08.08.2005 till realization and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for loss of one year and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.
14. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.01.2007, the appellants have come up in appeal.
15. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the written arguments filed on behalf of respondent no1.
16. As per Ex.C-2, National Institute of Hotel Management is affiliated with intercultural Open University, The Netherlands and is approved/authorized Study Centre of IASE Deemed University, Rajasthan, First Appeal No.329 of 2007 6 which is further recognized by U.G.C. (University Grants Commission), Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India. Admittedly, respondent no.1 paid Rs.96,900/. Ex.C-6 was written by the appellants to respondent no.1 as per which the complete information and prospectus was sent and vide Ex.C-7, the fee was prescribed. Ex.C-8 contains the name of the Deemed University and name of respondent no.2 finds mention at Point-5, showing that it is a Deemed University, not founded by U.G.C. Notice/Circular Ex.C-9 dated 23rd August, 2005 was issued by the University Grants Commission and the name of respondent ono.2 finds mention, regarding which clarifications were sought by large number of people/students and it was clarified that the Deemed to be Universities are not permitted to affiliate any college/institute. The Deemed to be Universities can offer Distance Education Programme only through its own study centres and that too with the specific approval of both the UGC and Distance Education Council. Private Franchising of higher education is not permissible. As of today, UGC has not approved the study centres of any Deemed to be Universities, including the above three Deemed to be Universities. Circular Ex.C-10 dated 9th August, 2005 issued by University Grants Commission is also to be same effect. Ex.C-12, Ex.C-13 also repeat the similar warnings. Ex.C-16 is the receipt and Ex.C-17 and Ex.C-18 are the copies of drafts sent to the appellants from Barnala.
17. Certified copy of previous complaint filed by respondent no.1 is Ex.C-22 and the certified copy of the reply filed on behalf of the appellants is Ex.C-23. In Para-6 of the reply, it was mentioned as under:-
"NIHM is affiliated with Intercultural Open University, NIHM is an approved authorized study centre (DDE) of I.A.S.E. Deemed University, Rajasthan. I.A.S.E. is recognized by UGC, Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India"., letter of intent issued by the I.A.S.E. (Deemed University) Gandhi Vidya Mandir,Sardarshar-331401,Rajasthan, India, Ref. No. DE/ GVM/ SRDR/ 689/ 2003 dated 08.07.2003 also hereby annexed with this application as Annexure-2".First Appeal No.329 of 2007 7
18. Ex.C-24 is the authorization letter of respondent no.2 in favour of the appellants, to run an authorized centre of their university at National Institute of Hotel Management, 29, Dilram Bazar, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, for conducting Distance Education Programmes in the field of Traditional Stream.
19. Thus, it is clear that Deemed to be Universities are not permitted to affiliate any college/institute, but can offer Distance Education Programme only through their own study centers with the specific approval of both UGC and Distance Education Council. The UGC has not approved the study centers of any of the Deemed to be Universities, including the said three Universities. In the reply Ex.C-23 in para-6, the appellants admitted that the appellant is an approved authorized study centre of respondent no.2. Vide Ex.C-24, respondent no.2 authorized the appellants to run an authorized centre of their University at National Institute of Hotel Management, 29, Dila Ram Bazar, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, for conducting Distance Education Programme in the filed of Traditional Stream.
20. From the above discussion, it is clear that respondent no.2 could not authorize the appellants to impart education, as the private franchisee of the higher education was not possible, nor any approval was sought from the UGC and Distance Education Council.
21. In view of above discussion and the fact that the District Forum has passed a detailed and reasonable order, there is no ground to interfere with the same.
22. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and the impugned order dated 02.01.2007 under appeal passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
23. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent no.1/complainant, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry First Appeal No.329 of 2007 8 of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
24. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum, along with costs imposed vide this order, shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent no.1/complainant within two months of the receipt of copy of the order.
25. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.04.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
26. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member April 16, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)