National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Iiit College Of Engineering, vs 1. Vikas Sood & Ors. on 2 April, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (1) REVISION PETITION NO. 648 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 93/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Vikas Sood S/o Shri Vinod Sood Kartar Niwas Tuti Kandi, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (2) REVISION PETITION NO. 649 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 90/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Vikas Swangla S/o Shri Hira Lal Sharma C/o Hira Textiles, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (3) REVISION PETITION NO. 650 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No.91/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Tara Chand S/o Shri R.D. Chauhan R/o Village, Chuhabey, P.O. Khaneri, Tehsil Rampur, District H.P. 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education, Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, (H.P.) .. Respondents (4) REVISION PETITION NO. 651 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No.92/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P. ) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Rohini Bassi D/o Shri Baljit Bassi Ward No.4, Lusmi Niwas, Near Mainwali Haveli, Nalagarh (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (5) REVISION PETITION NO. 652 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 94/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P. ) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Nidhi Sharma D/o Shri Satish Kumar Sharma 278/11/1, Naya Nagal, District Ropar, Punjab 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (6) REVISION PETITION NO. 653 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No.95/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Ajit Chambyal S/o Shri S.S. Chambyal R/o Village Hatli, P.O. Draman, Tehsil Bhatiat, Distt. Chamba (H.P.) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (7) REVISION PETITION NO. 654 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 96/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P. ) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Kamal Kishore House No.383, Ward No.7, Cinema Road Palampur, District Kangar (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (8) REVISION PETITION NO. 655 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 97/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P. ) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Sonu Kumari D/o Prem Singh C/o New Prem Cloth House Bhuana, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra (H.P.) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (9) REVISION PETITION NO. 656 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 98/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P. ) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Vinay Thakur S/o Shri PRem Singh Adarsh Residence, Behind Adarsh Hotel, The Mall Mandi (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (10) REVISION PETITION NO. 657 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 99/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Dina Nath Ram Singh House, Ram Nagar, District Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (11) REVISION PETITION NO. 658 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 100/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Nikita Sharma D/o Kaushal Sharma LIG 46, Rakkar Colony, Una Distt., Una (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (12) REVISION PETITION NO. 659 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 101/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P. ) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Vivek Kalia S/o Shri Ashok Kali R/o Madanpur Basoli, Tehsil & Distt. UNA, (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (13) REVISION PETITION NO. 660 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 102/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P. ) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Yogesh Bhardwaj S/o Shri M.L.Sharma VPO Chambi Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (14) REVISION PETITION NO. 661 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 103/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P. ) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Jyoti Gupta S/o Shri V.K.Gupta District & Sessions Judge Chamba District Chamba (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (15) REVISION PETITION NO. 662 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 121/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P. ) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Ankur Gupta S/o Shri Satish Gupta R/o House No.24/1, Village Bhatwali, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (16) REVISION PETITION NO. 663 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 161/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Palvinder Singh Mann C/o M.S. Mann House No.1009, Vasant Vihar, Kasumpti, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (17) REVISION PETITION NO. 664 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 162/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Mohinder Singh R/o Village Majra, P.O. Kachhera Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (18) REVISION PETITION NO. 665 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 163/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Sunny Bhunwal S/o Shri Gian Chand Bhunwal Bhunwal Lodge, Chapslee, Shimla (H.P.) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (19) REVISION PETITION NO. 666 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 164/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Dhruv Vats Prakash Bhawan, Solan Bye Pass, Solan, Distt. Solan (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (20) REVISION PETITION NO. 667 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 165/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Sudhir Thakur S/o Shri Jai Ram R/o Village Khuddi, P.O. Balhara, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (21) REVISION PETITION NO. 668 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 166/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Ashish Chohan S/o Shri Partap Singh Chohan Shailja Oakwood Estate Kalthu Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (22) REVISION PETITION NO. 669 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 167/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Gaurav Gupta S/o Shri J.K. Gupta I & PH Department Kakira, Distt. Chamba (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (23) REVISION PETITION NO. 670 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No.168/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Vinay Sankhyan S/o Shri Baldev Singh R/o Village Ajnoli, P.O. Kotla Kalan, Tehsil & Distt. Una (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (24) REVISION PETITION NO. 671 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 169/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Ashwani Bhardwaj S/o Shri C.R. Bhardwaj R/o Village Tikkri, P.O. Sangrah Distt. Sirmaur (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents (25) REVISION PETITION NO. 672 OF 2007 (Against order dated 10.11.2006 in Appeal No. 170/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H. P.) IIIT College of Engineering, Kala Amb through its Authorized Representative Shri Dalela Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal C/o NIC 914, Manimarjra, Chandigarh .. Petitioner Versus 1. Isha Nand D/o Shri Vijay Anand Jawala Colony, Shamshi, Distt. Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) 2. State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Technical Education Shimla 3. The Himachal Pradesh University Through its Registrar Summer Hills, Shimla 4. The Director of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training H.P. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh .. Respondents BEFORE : HONBLE MR JUSTICE V B GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate For the Respondent Mr Ravi Bakshi, Advocate for R 1 R-2 & R-4 Already ex-parte Mr Anirudh Wadhwa, Advocate for R-3 Pronounced on : 2nd April, 2013 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B.GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Brief facts are that Ms. Rama Sinha, who was the opposite party no.5 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nahan, H.P. (for short, District Forum) was ex-Chairperson of a College of Engineering being run at Kala Amb named as I.I.T.T. The said opposite party no.5 in August, 2000, advertised in the newspaper regarding introducing Degree Course in Information Technology for 80 students for the session 2000-2001. It was stated in the prospectus that the college was affiliated with the H.P. University and was also approved by the AICTE (Delhi). It was further alleged that respondents no.1/complainants were sponsored for admission in the college through competition held by Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur in the year 2000, where-after respondent no.1 got admission in the college of engineering at Kala Amb in August 2000 on the basis of merit list prepared and declared by Director Technical Education respondent no.4. Thereafter, respondents no.1 deposited requisite fees with the opposite party no.5. It is further alleged that respondents no.1 attended first semester classes upto September, 2000, but no examinations of the said semester were held. On enquiries, respondents no.1 were told that examination of first and second semester were to be held in April-May, 2001. It is only then, that it transpired that the college of engineering had neither affiliation with the H.P. University nor was recognized by AICTE (Delhi). Being shocked, the students of the college filed a writ petition in the High Court of H.P., wherein State of H.P. was directed to accommodate the students in other engineering colleges in the state or elsewhere and respondent no.4/opposite party no.3 Director, Technical Education was appointed as Administrator of the Institute. It was thereafter that respondent no.4 and petitioner got respondent no.1 admitted in February, 2002, in the first semester of I.T. Course in Seth Jai Parkash Mukund Lal Institute of Engineering & Technology Radaur Yamuna Nagar of Kurukeshtra University, Haryana, which is at a distance of about 100 kms. from the residence of respondent no.1. Thus, 25 complaints alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices claiming a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- each along with interest, damages and cost of litigation were filed before the District Forum.
2. Respondent no.3/opposite party no.2 - H.P. University filed reply and took specific defence that the college run by opposite party no.5 was neither affiliated nor granted affiliation to start I.T. Course, either by it or by the AICTE (Delhi).
3. Respondents nos.2 & 4/opposite party nos.1 and 3 filed joint reply and took preliminary objection that the complaints are not maintainable. District Forum has no jurisdiction and respondents no.1 are estopped from filing the complaints as no notice under section 80 CPC has been served.
On merits, it has been stated that counselling for Information Technology seats against approved seats was done by respondent no.4 pursuant to the directions passed by the Delhi High Court.
The students were admitted to the course after due publication of the counselling date and it was made clear that admission to the I.T. Course were subject to the decision of the Delhi High Court and approval of the All India Council for Technical Education. It has been further submitted that after taking over of the College by the Administrator pursuant to the directions of the High Court, vide its order dated 7.9.2001, the answering respondent had got respondent no.1 admitted to Kurukeshtra University. On these grounds, the dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. O.P no.5 in its reply took the defence that complaints are beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum ; the complaints are not maintainable as issues in these complaints are also part and parcel of the Special Leave Petition pending in the Supreme Court of India. Further, complainants are not consumer. The terms of the prospectus specify that tuition fees and other charges once deposited were not to be refunded in any event. On merits, it has been stated that the advertisement for admissions were not issued by opposite party no.5 but by the Director, Technical Education, Sunder Nagar. The college was duly affiliated by the H.P. University for various courses including Information Technology and the requisite infrastructure was approved by the AICTE. The tuition fees were charged from the students strictly in accordance with the norms fixed by State Level Fee Committee and duly notified by the State Government. It has been further stated that H.P. University unlawfully refused to hold examinations for I.T. Courses despite the fact that students were admitted to the I.T. Course following the procedure laid down in AICTE regulations and the prospectus duly approved by the HP University and Director Technical Education, which are competent authorities for admission declared by the State Govt.
It has been further pleaded that the college and management was victimized by the HP University and the then Vice Chancellor, late Shri S.K. Gupta. It is totally wrong to say that college did not have either AICTE approval or affiliation with the HP University. It was the college who had moved Delhi High Court for obtaining the order permitting the students to appear in the examination to be conducted by HP University. The order dated 27.3.2001 passed by Delhi High Court had attained finality as the Special Leave Petition filed against it before the Supreme Court, was dismissed on 11.5.2001. It is further stated that the management of the college was taken over on 7.9.2001 by the Administrator appointed by the orders of the High Court of H.P. The management was restored only on 6.6.2003 and for all the acts committed during this period, the college is not responsible and it is the administrator who is responsible for the action/inaction during this period. On these grounds the dismissal of the complaints has been prayed for.
5. District Forum, vide its order dated 7.4.2005 passed in each complaint separately, allowed the complaints and passed the following directions ;
As a sequel of the above, we are of the affirmed view that the complainant is entitled to refund of the fee amount which remains un-refunded till date by the OP No.5 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of deposit with the college, till actual payment is made. Apart from this, the complainant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as the financial loss suffered for one and half year computing the same at the rate of 10,000/- per month. The complainant is further held entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- as damages for the mental torture and harassment suffered and further a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. We accordingly, direct the OP No.5 to refund the un-refunded amount of fees to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit with the college, till actual payment is made.
So far as the financial loss, damages and cost of litigation as ordered supra, are concerned half of the same shall be borne by the Ops No.1 & 3 and the remaining half by the OP No.5. This order be complied with by the Ops No.1, 3 & 5 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed 25 separate appeals before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (short, State Commission). The State Commission consolidated all the appeals observing as under ;
25 complaints were filed by the private respondents against the appellant, State of Himachal Pradesh, Director Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh University and one Smt. Rama Sinha. Since common questions of law and fact were involved in all these cases before the District Forum below, therefore, vide order dated 7.5.2003, those were consolidated with the complaint titled as Isha Nand Vs. State of H.P. & others. At the time of hearing all these appeals, learned counsel for the parties were not at variance that the reply filed in this case has been taken to be the reply in all other complaints. Though in each case separate order has been passed on the basis of the reply of the respondent in the complaint of Ms. Isha Nand Vs. State of H.P. being Complaint No. 1/2003. As such we have taken up of the file of Ms. Isha Nand and are passing this order in Appeal No. 170/2006, which shall govern the rest of the cases as well, i.e. Appeal Nos. 90/2006 to 103/2006, 121/2006 and 161/2006 to 170/2006, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases .
7. Consequently, State Commission vide impugned order dated 10.11.2006, partly allowed the appeals. Operative portion of which states ;
In view of the aforesaid discussion while partly allowing these appeals, it is ordered that the appellant is liable to pay Rs.75,000/- to each one of the complainant-private respondent in these cases together with 9% per annum interest on this amount from the date(s) of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment/deposit whichever is earlier, besides full compensation and costs as assessed by the District Forum below in addition fee if not already refunded, which shall also carry interest @ 9% from the date(s) of deposit till the date of payment. It is further ordered that each one of the complainant-private respondent is entitled to Rs.5,000/- cost in these appeals. Subject to this modification all these appeals are disposed of.
8. Being not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, petitioner filed present 25 revision petitions.
9. Notice of these revision petitions were issued to all the respondents. Respondent nos.1 and 3 put in their appearance through counsels. Whereas, respondent nos. 2 and 4 did not appear despite service. Hence, vide order dated 20.11.2007, they were proceeded ex-parte.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
11. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the necessary approvals have been duly granted to the petitioners Institute. Moreover, the appointment of Administrator which was illegal had been struck down by the Honble Supreme Court of India. Thus, any illegality which may have been committed on the part of the Administrator, cannot result in any liability being fastened on the petitioner. Further, the terms of prospectus/ admission brochure specifically states that tuition fee and other charges once deposited will not be refunded for any reason whatsoever and the prospectus has been duly approved by the Competent Authority of the admission. Thus, there has been no deficiency on the part of the petitioner and impugned order under these circumstances, is liable to be set aside.
12. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of counsel for the respondents no.1 that course of the complainants was neither affiliated with H.P. University nor the same has been recognized by AICTE, Delhi. Thus, on account of misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner that the course has been recognized by AICTE, Delhi, one year of the complainants was spoiled.
There are concurrent findings of facts given by two fora below and no legal issue is involved. Thus, present petitions are liable to be dismissed.
13. Counsel for respondent no.3 has mainly relied upon by the order passed by two fora below, contending that it is the petitioners Institute which has misrepresented to the complainants about the recognition of the course. Thus, deficiency on its part is clearly established, in view of the concurrent findings of facts given by District Forum as well as by the State Commission.
14. The District Forum, while allowing the complaints in its order held ;
6. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant had sought admission and had been sponsored for admission to the college being run by the OP No.5 in the name and style of I.I.T.T. College of Engineering a Kala Amb, District Sirmour, H.P. It is also the admitted case that the complainant was not in a position to appear in the first and second semester of the I.T. Course and pursuant to the directions passed by the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, the Administrator appointed by the Honble High Court of H.P. had got the complainant admitted to some other institute. The only issue in controversy is as to which one of the opposite party is to be held liable for the loss of one and half academic year of the complainant. As far as the stand of the OP No.5 in this regard is concerned, the same is that of total denial. It is the case of the OP No.5 that the college being run by it was duly affiliated with the H.P.University and was also approved by the AICTE, Delhi. In this regard, strong reliance has been placed on Annexure R-3, R-4 and R-5. We have carefully perused Annexure R-3, R-4 and R-5 but the same do not in any manner support the contention of the OP. The perusal of Annexures R-3 and R-4 reveals that they were merely in the nature of stating no objection for giving of provisional affiliation to the engineering college bring run by the OP No.5 and Annexure R-5 which is dated 7.8.1997 grants only the provisional affiliation to the said college on the basis of recommendations of the State/Govt./ University/Regional Committee of the Council. The said Annexure further state that the provisional affiliation had been granted for the current academic session and the same was subject to any change and direction of all India Council for Technical Education of the State Govt./ University. Thus, these three documents do not in any manner substantiate the defence of the OP No.5 that the college being run by it was duly approved and affiliated both the AICTE, Delhi and HP University in the year 2001 when the admissions to the I.T. Course were conducted. This is especially so in view of the specific stand taken by the OP No.2 H.P.University that the I.I.T.T.College of Engineering at Kala Amb was neither affiliated by it nor approved by the AICTE, Delhi.
7. Now coming to the defence of the Ops No.1 & 3. The main defence of the said OP is that the admission to the course was made only after clarifying that the students were being admitted subject to the decision fo the Honble Delhi High Court and the approval by the All India Council for Technical Education.
In this regard, reliance has been laid down at Annexure R-1 which is the admission notice dated 3.8.2k. We have carefully perused the said document but the same nowhere reflects the defence which is being put forth on behalf of the Ops No.1 and 3. Thus, the stand of the Ops that they had duly informed the students seeking admission with regard to the case pending before the Honble Delhi High Court and the affiliation and approval of the HP University and AICTE, Delhi is falsified. Though, it has been vehemently contended that it was the Ops No.1 and 3 who took necessary steps for adjusting/shifting the Information Technology students to the neighbouring States but the same in no manner condones the negligence and callousness on their part whereby they advertised for admission and sponsored the student for admission to the College being run by the OP No.5 without first ensuring that the same was duly affiliated and approved with the HP University and AICTE, Delhi. This Forum cannot lose sight of the fact that the OP No.1-State of H.P. and the OP No.3 Director, Technical Education of the State of H.P. had taken out an advertisement for admissions to the I.I.T.T. College of Engineering being run by the OP No.5 and these were the very Ops who had sponsored the students for admission to the college. It is a matter of common knowledge that any individual seeking admission to any professional college would rely upon the assurance held out in any advertisement taken out by the State or an instrumentality/agency of the State.
Similar has been the case in the case in hand. The State of H.P.-OP No.1 through its Director, Technical Education, the present OP no.3, took out the admission and sponsored the students to the College being run by the OP No.5 and the complainant being one of the successful candidates in the fond hope that the college is duly affiliated and recognized took the admission and also deposited the requisite fees. Though, the factual position turned out to be otherwise and it is only after the Honble High Court directed the Ops No.1 & 3 for initiation of appropriate steps that the complainant was adjusted in the neighbouring State after the wastage of one and half academic year. We, thus, hold that there is a clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops No.1, 3 and 5 and they are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of one and half academic year and the mental trauma and financial loss suffered by the complainant.
15. The State Commission, while partly allowing the appeals, observed ;
4. At the very outset, we may observe that in case appellant college was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education and at the same time had been affiliated to the Himachal Pradesh University, during the academic session 2000-01 for the Information Technology course, impugned order has to be set aside, otherwise no exception can be taken to it.
5. Therefore with reference to the documents placed on file we specifically called upon learned counsel for the appellant to show any document to suggest that the IT course was either approved by the All India Council for Technical Education or the college was affiliated for the said course with the Himachal Pradesh University. None could be pointed from the record by Mr. Nag, learned counsel for the appellant. He however laid great emphasis on Annexure R-1 and submitted that his client has committed no illegality, muchless wrong while admitting students of Information Technology course during the session 2000-01.
State Commission further observed ;
15. The question regarding appellant neither being affiliated to H.P. University nor being recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education came up for consideration before District Forum Mandi, Camp at Sunder Nagar in Consumer Complaint No. 140/2002 (old), 186/2005 (new) in the case of B.R. Suman and another Vs. IITT College and others. In this case Smt. Rama Sinha Chairperson of the appellant college and State of H.P. through Technical Education were not arrayed as respondents. Compensation was allowed by the District Forum below in favour of the complainants. Matter came up in appeal filed by Vivek Manhas complainant No.2 before this Commission in Appeal No. 135/2006 as interest had been allowed on the sum deposited from the date of order only. Decision in this case was relied upon by Mr. Jagdish Thakur when a reference is made to the order of this Commission in Appeal No. 135/2006, it is clear that appellant as well as Smt. Rama Sinha, both were set ex parte by the District Forum below. However they appeared through their learned counsel before District Forum below, and did not contest the order to refund the fees realized by them with 7 % from the date of order and not from the date of deposit. Neither the appellant nor Smt. Rama Sinha challenged the findings of the District Forum below that the former was neither affiliated to H.P. University nor was recognized by the All India Council of Technical Education. This order could not be disputed on behalf of the appellant. This is an additional ground to dismiss the appeal of the appellant.
16. Mr. Nag submitted that private respondents are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever because in the advertisement it was notified that the admission was subject to the decision of the Honble High Court. This plea has only been raised simply to be rejected. On one hand appellant is holding itself out to be affiliated for IT course during 2000-01 session with the University as well as being approved for this session by All India Council for Technical Education, if this was the true and correct position we do not understand where was the need for appellant to have gone to Delhi High Court seeking direction to the Administrator for counseling etc. This plea on behalf of the appellant in our opinion is self-contradictory and mutually destructive and is hereby rejected.
16. Main question for consideration in these petitions is, as to whether Petitioners College misrepresented to the complainants with regard to the recognition of the I.T. Course which was being attended by them. There is nothing on record to show that the Degree Course in Information Technology for the session 2000-2001, for which coaching was being imparted by Petitioners College, was at all recognized by AICTE, Delhi.
Had this course been recognized for the relevant period, then petitioner should have placed on record the approval letter issued by AICTE, Delhi, in its favour. There is also no explanation, as to why petitioner did not conduct any examinations for the course period that is, for 2000-2001, if the Degree Course in Information Technology had been recognized by the AICTE, Delhi/H.P.University.
17. Further, O.P no.5 in its written statement has also taken this plea that petitioners college and management was itself being victimized by the H.P.University and the then, Vice-Chancellor Late Dr.S.K.Gupta. However, petitioners college has nowhere elaborated about such plea nor there is any evidence to this effect.
18. It is well settled that under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Under this Section, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
19. In view of the concurrent findings of facts given by the two fora below that Degree Course for Information Technology, being conducted by the Petitioners College for the session of 2000-2001 was neither affiliated with H.P.University or with AICTE, Delhi, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been committed by the fora below. The unfair trade practices being conducted by the petitioners college are fully established in the present cases. Thus, present revision petitions being not maintainable, are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) in each case. Costs of Rs.10,000/- by way of demand draft separately, in the name of each respondent no.1/complainant, be remitted to them directly or be deposited in this Commission, within four weeks from today.
20. In case, petitioner fails to remit/deposit the aforesaid costs within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
21. List on 10.5.2013 for compliance.
J (V B Gupta) Presiding Member ..
(Rekha Gupta) Member Sonia/