State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gaurav Mittal vs International Management Institute on 15 May, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 15-05-2007 Complaint Case No. 220/2001 Mr. Gaurav Mittal, S/o. Shri R.K. Mittal, R/o. C-4/4049, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. . . . Complainant Through Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Advocate Versus International Management Institute, B-10, Qutab Institutional Area, Tata Crescent, New Delhi 110016. . . . Opposite Party Through Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Advocate CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, President 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 (Oral)
1. The complainant was admitted by the O.P Institute for a Post Graduate Programme in International Management (in short called PGDIM). The eligibility requirement for this course was Bachelors Degree or equivalent from a recognized Indian or foreign University. The complainant is a graduate from University of Bradford, U.K. and the degree of the said university is a recognized degree. The complainant paid Rs. 1,40,000/- for admission to the course and the course is divided into three semesters. The complainant has passed two semesters and when he was in the third semester the O.P. said that his degree from Bradford was not recognized by the Association of India Universities (AIU) and asked him to withdraw from the course.
Since the requirement was only a Bachelors degree or equivalent from a recognized Indian or foreign university they cannot ask the complainant to withdraw from the course and if there was a condition that the degree should also be recognized by the AIU it should have been explicitly made clear in the programme brochure and should have been verified before giving admission.
2. Thus the decision of the O.P. struck the complainant like a thunder bolt from the blues and he was shattered and continued studies for participation and went into depression so much so the O.P. even refused to refund the fees and on account of deficiency in service on the part of O.P. has sought refund of Rs.1,40,000/- and compensation of Rs. 10.00 Lacs as well as cost of proceedings.
3. While justifying non-refund of the fees as well as refuting the charge of deficiency in service in not ensuring before giving admission that the degree obtained by the complainant was either recognized by the AIU or not, the O.P. has come up with the following defence:-
i) That the complainant in the application form filed for the course did not reveal that he had obtained the degree from the University of Bradford by pursuing two years in an unrecognized college in India. Only the third year was done in Bradford.
ii) As per the documents on record placed by the complainant he was eligible to pursue higher studies in the UK, European countries and the United States of America. This fact the complainant did not reveal to the O.P at the time of his interview or thereafter. It was only in October, 2000 that the complainant brought to the notice of the O.P. that he had done two years of his course from an Institute in India which is not recognized.
Therefore, in October, the O.P. forwarded the case to the Association of India Universities (AIU) which is the only authority to recognize a degree of Indian or foreign University. On 15-11-2000 the AIU made it clear that because the complainant had pursued two years studies in an accredited Institute in India, therefore, the degree given by the University of Bradford was not recognized in India. Faced with this situation the complainant was asked to withdraw from the course. The complainant, however, pleaded that he should be allowed to continue. Therefore as a special case he was allowed to finish his third semester and was told that he would be only granted a Certificate of Participation which was agreed by the complainant in writing. However, the complainant failed to attend the course fully. His attendance was only 10% of which was required.
He failed in five out of six subjects.
The complainant was asked to withdraw from the Institute. It was only thereafter he challenged it before this Commission.
4. While refuting the correctness of the aforesaid version of the O.P, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that firstly there was no requirement of recognition of the Degree by AIU and secondly the University of Bradford, UK, itself certified that the Degree of B.Sc in Business Management and Studies awarded is in all respects the same as awarded to students who study wholly in the U.K. By virtue of this degree the complainant can even prosecute higher studies in the USA, UK and European Union countries which are educationally developed countries. Thirdly, in the application form the complainant furnished the entire requisite information in Column-8 and there was no stipulation whether the degree of the complainant was recognized by AIU or not. Lastly, it was only in the final semester, when two months were left, that the O.P forced the complainant to withdraw from the course and at the same time stated that he would be given a Certificate of Participation.
5. The aforesaid conspectus of rival claims and contentions of the parties show that there was no such stipulation made in the application for admission that the degree of Indian or foreign university should be recognized by AIU and it was at a subsequent stage that it dawned upon the O.P. to verify the fact whether the complainant was eligible for the course or not and therefore referred the matter to the AIU and inspite of all this, the complainant was allowed to continue for the purpose of Certificate of Participation. If the complainant was not eligible at all to pursue the course for which he was given admission then he should not have been allowed to continue in the Institute even for the purpose of Certificate of Participation which was of no use at all.
6. Admittedly the complainant had attended two semesters and left the Institute in the beginning of the third semester.
7. Taking over all view of the matter as well as the service provided by the O.P. to the complainant, may be for any purpose whatsoever, for two semesters and the continuation of the complainant with the O.P. for pursuing the course for the purpose of Certificate of Participation, persuade us to direct the O.P to refund 50% of the fees received by it as the complainant has suffered more in terms of his career that then the O.P. in terms of pecuniary loss.
8. Even the if the complainant had not revealed still the onus was on the O.P. to be equipped with the full facts as to what are the degrees that were recognized by the AIU for the purpose of admitting the students to this Institute or a particular Course.
9. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Complaint is disposed of in above terms.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Mahesh Chandra) Member HK