State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icfai National College vs Amrita Sodhi on 29 August, 2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Appeal Case No. 330 of 2010 Date of institution: 15.09.2010 Date of decision : 29 .08.2011 ICFAI National College, Plot No.8-3-948/949,5th floor, Solitair Plaza,Ameerpet, Hyderabad- 500 073(previously at Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector-25-D, Chandigarh (now closed) through its authorized signatory, Shri Rajinder Mathur, Assistant Manager, IFEN, SCO No.335-36, Sector-35-B, Chandigarh. . Appellant Versus 1. Amrita Sodhi D/o Shri K.N.S.Sodhi, Resident of House No.1634, Sector-70, District Mohali.. 2. Col. K.K.Sharma, Principal, Adam Smith Institute of Management, Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhasker Building, Sector-25-D, Chandigarh. .. Respondents. Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 Present Sh.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Mohit Jaggi,Advocate for respondent NO.1 Appeal case No.332 of 2010 (Date of institution:15.9.2010) Amrita Sodhi D/o Shri K.N.S.Sodhi, Resident of House No.1634, Sector-70, District Mohali.. --Appellant Versus 1. ICFAI National College (INC)( now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhasker Building, Sector-25-D, Chandigarh, through its Principal. 2. Shri K.K.Sharma, Principal, ICFAI National College (INC)(now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhasker Building, Sector-25-D, Chandigarh. -Respondents Present: Sh.Mohit Jaggi,Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Pankaj Gupta , Advocate, for respondents No.1 QUORUM : Justice Sham Sunder, President Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member
Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, arising out of the order dated 10.8.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs as under ;
The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.65,875/- deposited by the complainant. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and misrepresentation to the complainant, as held above and wasting her precious one year of career. The entire amount alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 29.01.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.
2. The complainant undertook the CAT test for admission to Masters Business Administration(MBA). She received interview letters, from various institutes, including OP-2 (now appellant in appeal No.330 of 2010). Allured by the false promises made by OP Nos.2 to 5 ( in the original complaint), she chose to get admission, in their College, and deposited admission fee of Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, she deposited another amount of Rs.50,875/- towards fee. She attended the classes in Sector 25, Chandigarh, for about 3 months. On 18/19.10.2008, all of a sudden, she was shocked to know that the name of the institute was changed from INC to INC Adam Smith. She also came to know, at that time, that the College was not affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, but was affiliated with ICFAI University, Tripura, which was not disclosed to her, at the time of admission. It was further stated that the affiliation was subsequently changed to Sikkim Manipal University, and, thereafter, to Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, within a year. It was further stated that on 30.10.2008, a parent teacher meeting was called, at the campus, at Chandigarh, and all the points were discussed, in detail. The OPs could not clarify, even a single point, raised by the students. It was further stated that right from the very beginning, the OPs indulged into grave unfair trade practice, deficiency, in rendering service, committed fraud and cheating with the students, by giving misleading information, about their status, and by not providing required infrastructure, as was promised. In this view of the matter, the complainant requested for the refund of fee, deposited alongwith compensation, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by her.
3. After hearing the complainant, at the time of preliminary hearing, the complaint against the ICFAI University, Dehradun, Village Bhawala, near Sailakhui Industrial Area, Poanta Sahib Road, District Dehradun, Shri Sukhwinder Singh Mann, Assistant Manager (Development), ICFAI National College (INC) (Now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh, and Anjali Mahajan, Counselling Officer, ICFAI National College (INC) (Now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh, OPs 1, 4 and 5 (in the original complaint) respectively was dismissed vide, order dated 08.02.2010, by the District Forum , without issuing notice to them, as the complainant was not able to establish, whether any service, was rendered by them, qua her.
4. OP Nos.2 & 3, in their written reply, stated that the complainant, at the time of admission, was provided the prospectus and application form disclosing information regarding the University, INC, MBA Programme, Education Methodology, Case Study, Resources and Facilities, Summer Internship etc. After going through the same, and accepting the same to be correct, the complainant submitted the application form, of her own volition. It was further stated that she signed the said application form, after having understood the contents thereof. It was further stated that she agreed to the terms and conditions, contained in this form, including the declaration.
It was further stated that the complainant was not given admission, as a regular student, but she was enrolled as a private student. The complainant submitted an application form for enrolling her into MBA programme to them, claiming exemption from the entrance examination, as she had appeared and qualified in IBSAT-2007. It was further stated that she attended classes for three months, after enrolment, and thereafter, she had not attended the classes, of her own. The complainant had attended pre-MBA classes upto 30 May, 2008, and Ist Semester upto 30 October 2008. It was further stated that after having studied, for the aforesaid period, she filed the complaint just to defame the answering OPs. It was further stated that the complainant herself was not able to continue the programme of her own, after the first semester. It was further stated that a letter was also sent to her parents, advising her to attend the classes, otherwise, she would lose her semester. It was further stated that the complainant had not appeared in CAT. It was further stated that it was clearly mentioned in the prospectus at page- 5 that INC was a constituent of ICFAI Academy, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, for the promotion of education and was permitted to open centers anywhere in India. It was further stated that the answering OPs were providing academic support and placement assistance. The change of INC to INC-Adam-Smith was admitted by the OPs. It was denied that the complainant was given a misleading information that OP No.2 was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, and it had off campus study centre of the said University, at Chandigarh.
It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, and indulged into unfair trade practice, by allegedly playing fraud and cheating the students, by giving misleading information, to them. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties , and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint , in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
7. Feeling aggrieved, Appeal bearing No. 330 of 2010 titled as ICFAI National College Vs Amrita Sodhi & another was filed by the appellant/OP No.2, for setting aside the order of the District Forum, being illegal, and Appeal bearing No.332 of 2010 titled as Amrita Sodhi Vs ICFAI National College & another was filed by the appellant/complainant for modification of the order, passed by the District Forum, by way of grant of compensation, in the sum of Rs.12 lacs, for wasting two precious years of her life, by the OPs, Rs.5 lacs for mental tension, harassment etc. alongwith litigation costs to the tune of Rs.15,000/-
and interest @ 18% p.a.
8. The service of respondent No.2 was dispensed with, vide order dated 3.11.2010 he being a proforma respondent.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for ICFAI National College, appellant, in Appeal No.330 of 2010, submitted that the complainant with eyes wide open, signed the declaration, contained in the application form, for enrollment, for the MBA programme, of her own volition. He further submitted that this declaration was, to the effect, that she was applying for the MBA Programme as a private candidate, and that she had carefully read the academic and administrative Rules and Regulations of ICFAI University, Dehradun. He further submitted that there was a clear-cut admission of the complainant, in the declaration, that, in case, she withdrew from the programme, she would not be entitled to claim any refund of amount paid to the College and the University.
He further submitted that OP2/2 an application form for academic support and placement assistance of INC was also signed by the complainant, with eyes wide open, which contained the declaration, that she would be provided academic support and placement assistance offered by it, as a private candidate of the MBA programme. He further submitted that both these declarations, contained, in the forms, were signed by the complainant, after understanding the Rules and Regulations and she could not be allowed to wriggle out of the same. He further submitted that the appellant/OP never made any false representation, to the complainant, that it was affiliated with ICFA I University, Dehradun. He further submitted that OP No.2 institute, never represented that it was off Campus Study Centre of ICFA University, Dehradun. He further submitted that after more than one year of attending the classes, the complainant of her own, left the course and, as such, she was not entitled to the refund of fee to the tune of Rs.50875/-, deposited with the appellant/OP and Rs.15,000/- deposited with ICFAI University, Dehradun, directly. He further submitted that the complainant was never enrolled, as a regular student, for the MBA programme. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that misleading information was given to the complainant, by OP No.2, that it was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun and that she was given admission as a regular student. He further submitted that the complainant was given a computer by the appellant/OP No.2, but she never returned the same after leaving studies, of her own volition. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant in Appeal bearing No.330/2010, and the appellant in Appeal No.332/2010, submitted that, right from the very beginning OP No.2 Institute, cheated the complainant and gave her misleading information, about the fact, that INC(now Adam smith Institute of Management) was affiliated to ICFAI University, Dehradun. He further submitted that she was enrolled as a regular student and that was why 75% attendance was insisted upon for appearing in the examination.
He further submitted that the appellant/OP in Appeal No.330 of 2010 was running a regular course of MBA programme at off-campus study centre, at Chandigarh. He further submitted that had the complainant been made known, at the time of taking admission that the appellant/OP, in Appeal No.330/2010 was not affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, and it was not legally authorized to open its off Campus Study Centre, at Chandigarh, she would not have taken admission, and paid the fee. He further submitted that the appellant/OP in Appeal No.330/2010 was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice, by giving misleading information, to the students, including her, playing fraud upon them, and also cheating them. He further submitted that a computer was given by the appellant/OP, in Appeal No.330/2010 to the complainant which she was ready to return. It was further submitted that the District Forum did not take into consideration, that two precious years of the career of the complainant, were wasted , as a result whereof, it fell into an error, in granting only a meagre compensation of Rs.50,000/-, interest at a nominal rate and meagre costs. He further submitted that the complainant be granted compensation of Rs.12 lacs, for wasting her two precious years, Rs.5 lacs for mental tension and physical harassment, Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses, and interest @ 18% p.a. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum be modified, to this extent.
12. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties , and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed, with minor modification so far as Appeal No.332/2010 is concerned, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, any misrepresentation was made by the appellant/OP No.2 in Appeal No.330/2010, that it was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, and off Campus study entre of the said University was at Chandigarh. There is a document attached with C-4 at page-28 of the District Forum file, nomenclatured as comparative table-INC Vs ASIM Campus. This document was supplied by the appellant/OP No.2. In this document, in clear-cut terms, it was stated that ICFAI National College(INC) was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun. Letter C-4 dated 21.10.2008 was issued by respondent No.2, in which, it was specifically mentioned that the degree of the students, will come from ICFAI University, Dehradun. However, in the written statement, a completely contradictory stand was taken by the OP, that it never made a representation to the students that ICFAI National College (now Adam Smith Institute of Management) was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, and it was an off study centre of ICAFI, at Chandigarh. Annexure C1 is the document issued by OP No.2(now known as Adam Smith Institute of Management). According to this document ASIM(Adam Smith Institute of Management) has been running its campus at Chandigarh, since 2006. It means that ASIM Chandigarh was the off campus study centre, of ICFAI, Dehradun. In the face of the aforesaid documents, the contrary stand taken by the OP, in the written reply, as also by its Counsel, at the time of arguments, clearly proves that a false representation was made to the complainant by OP No.2, that it was affiliated with ICFAI University and was authorized to run off campus study centre for MBA Programme of ICFAI University at Chandigarh. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard are affirmed.
13. The second question that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, it was a full time regular MBA programme, which was offered to the complainant, and other students. C-2 is the welcome address of the Director of OPNo.2, in which it was mentioned that they were offering a full-time MBA programme in 154 campuses across the Country. In a document attached with C-4, at page 28, it was in clear-cut terms, mentioned that the said institute was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun. The letter dated 21.10.2008 annexure C4 regarding the parent meeting-INC Campus issued by OP No.3, duly recorded about the agitation of the students, regarding the requirement of 75 % attendance and their insistence on this. OP-3 referred to the University Grants Commission (hereinafter to be referred as UGC) Rule, providing for the same and mentioned that they do not wish to compromise on this aspect of the matter. It was admitted by the appellant/OP in Appeal No.330/2010 that such a communication was sent to the parents, whose wards were not attending the requisite number of classes. Annexure OP-2/3 is the letter vide which Mr. K.N.S. Sodhi, father of the complainant was informed about her not attending the classes. He was asked to advise her to attend classes regularly, failing which, they would not be responsible for her missing out in the examination of the said semester. It was again made clear, in this letter, that vide students hand book Rules, any student missing out, in any examination, would get a Not Cleared grading and would have to clear that subject in the next Course. The OPs admitted that they had been doing this, for the last three years, and would continue to do the same, in future, which was the practice in all 154 INC campuses across the Country. In case, it was not a regular Course, which was offered to the complainant, and other students, then what was the necessity of 75% attendance. If the complainant got enrolled herself as a private candidate, for MBA degree certificate Course, then the question of 75% attendance, for making her eligible to appear in the examination, did not at all arise.
Reference to UGC Rule, which was not applicable to the appellant/OP, was misconceived. From the aforesaid document, it was, thus, proved that an impression was given by the OP intentionally to the students that it was a regular Course. The contrary stand taken by the OP, in the written reply, and at the time of arguments by their Counsel that it was not a regular Course, but the complainant enrolled herself as a private student, clearly proved that a false representation was made to the students, that it was a regular course. The District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion, that a false representation was made that it was a regular MBA Course, for which 75% attendance was required.
14. Now the next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether the appellant/OP was running off campus study centre of ICFAI University, Dehradun at Chandigarh, unauthorizedly. At the time of admission of the complainant in the Course, she filled the application form for enrollment OP2/2. From this document, it is evident that she was being enrolled to ICFAI University, Dehradun. It is, thus, suggestive of the fact that the appellant/OP was the off-campus study centre of the said University and it was competent to enroll the students on its behalf. Vide OP2/2, application form, for academic support and placement assistance filled-in, by the complainant, she was asked with regard to INC centre where she wanted to study. Against this column Chandigarh was written. It means that the appellant/OP was running INC centre at Chandigarh. It was so done with a view to befool the students, and to let them believe that they were the students of ICFAI University College and not the students of a private institute. When the information was asked for from the UGC, New Delhi, the same was supplied vide Annexure C-5, wherein, it was, in clear-cut terms, stated that ICFAI University, Dehradun & ICFAI University, Tripura were Private Universities. It was further intimated vide C5, that Private Universities could not affiliate any Institute/College. They could not establish off-campus study centres, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned State. However, they could establish off-campus study centre,s within the concerned State, after their existence for five years, and with the prior approval of the University Grants Commission. It was further intimated vide C-5 that so far UGC had not approved off campus study centre of any Private University. Vide C-5 it was also intimated by the UGC, that for running programmes, in distance mode, the approval of joint committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC, was required. It was further intimated that Distance Education Council, is the Coordinator of the Joint Committee. The students/public at large, were advised to have access to the website of the UGC, before taking admission, in any of the above State Private Universities, and report the matter to the Secretary, UGC, on finding any violation of the above provisions. C-6 is another document, which was supplied by the UGC, in pursuance of the information, sought under the Right to Information Act,2005.
Vide this document, it was clarified that ICFAI Universities, were not permitted to run off campus study centres, in J&K and rest of India. This document, therefore, clearly proved that ICFAI University, Dehradun and ICFAI University, Tripura could not open their off campus study centres, outside the State, in which, they were located ,and they also could not provide distance education, except with the approval of the Joint Committee, referred to above, which they never got. Even, no degree could be awarded by the said University, from any other place, than the University campus. It means that the appellant/OP institute was being run against the instructions/guidelines of the UGC. The appellant/OP in Appeal No.330/2010 gave wrong information to the students with a view to attract them by adopting unfair trade practice, knowing fully well, that it was neither affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, nor it could legally open an off-campus study centre at Chandigarh of ICFAI, nor ICFAI University, Dehradun could award degree to the said candidates, for regular Course of MBA. Thus, OP/appellant indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.
15. Right from the very beginning, the case of the complainant/respondent in Appeal No.332/2010 was, to the effect ,that had it been made known to her, that the OP institute in Appeal No.330/2010 was not affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun or it was a private institute, she would not have chosen to study there. Once, she was given an impression and made to believe that the appellant/OP in Appeal NO.330/2010 was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, she took admission in the said college. It was, later on, that the complainant came to know, as discussed above, that neither the appellant/OP in Appeal No.330/2010 was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, nor it could legally open off campus study centre at Chandigarh, nor it could enroll candidates for regular MBA Course. However, when ICFAI students came to know about the fraud, having been played upon them, they protested against the same and a news item also appeared in Chandigarh Tribune dated 21.10.2008, a copy whereof, is Annexure C/3. The news about the misdeeds of ICFAI also appeared in a 24 page magazine Careers 360, a copy of whereof is Annexure C/11. It was, thereafter, that she applied for discontinuing the Course, and refund of fee paid by her, but the OPs did not agree. Even the agitations were held and there was uproar amongst the students, against the OPs since, October, 2008, as is clear from Annexure C/3 and Annexure C/11.
It was, thus, clearly proved that right from the very beginning, the intention of OP No.2/appellant was to extract the tuition fee, and other amounts, from the complainant, and other students, by misleading them, that it was off campus study centre of ICFAI University, Dehradun, and it could open the same at Chandigarh, and enroll the students for regular Course of MBA. OP No.2/appellant cheated the complainant and other students by playing fraud upon them,, by giving them misleading information, referred to above and, thus, indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, are affirmed.
16. Though, the appellant/complainant in Appeal No.332/2010 sought modification of the order of the District Forum, claiming enhanced compensation for wastage of two years of her career , as also for mental tension and physical harassment, costs and interest , yet it may be stated here, that the District Forum, after taking into consideration, the totality of facts and circumstances of the case was right, in granting compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is settled principle of law, that the Consumer Foras, are not meant to enrich the complainants, at the cost of the service providers. The compensation, required to be awarded, by the Consumer Foras, should be reasonable, just and fair, and commensurate with the facts and circumstances prevailing, on record. It should neither be excessive, nor too meagre. In the instant case, the compensation of Rs.50,000/-, granted by the District Forum, could not be said to be meagre, and, on the other hand, the same is just, fair and reasonable. Similarly, the costs awarded also cannot be said to be meagre. No ground, therefore, for enhancement of compensation, costs and rate of interest is made out.
17. No doubt, the Counsel for the appellant/OP in Appeal No.330/2010, submitted that, forms annexure OP/2/2 and annexure 2, were filled in by the complainant, with eyes wide open, and she signed the declaration contained therein, which was, to the effect, that she was enrolling herself, as a private student, she shall be given academic support and placement assistance offered by INC to the private candidates of the MBA programme and shall not be entitled to the refund of fee and , as such, she could not wriggle out of the same, made by her on 19.3.2008, yet it may be stated here, that the said contention of the Counsel for the appellant/OP could not be accepted as correct. No doubt, on forms annexure OP/2/1 and annexure 2 which were filled in , by the complainant there was a printed declaration. When a student, who is not so mature, in the worldly life, seeks admission, in a particular course, he/she is to sign the form of the institute. In Appeal No.330/2010 the Director of the appellant/OP No.2 institute made a representation, in his address annexure C2, nomenclatured as Welcome to INC Placements that INC College (Now Adam Smith Institute of Management Chandigarh) was affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun and was their off campus study centre. Not only this, in so many other documents, discussed above, such a representation was made. As discussed above, in the written statement and at the time of arguments, the stand of OP No.2/appellant, was that it was not affiliated with ICFAI University and it had not opened its off campus study centre, at Chandigarh. In these circumstances, the students including the complainant, were misled. If, under these circumstances, the complainant was made to sign the printed declarations, on the aforesaid forms, which was contrary to the documents, referred to, and discussed above, then the same were the result of misrepresentation and fraud. These printed declarations, besides being contrary to the documents, referred to and discussed above, issued by OP No.2 and UGC could be said to be one sided, and overloaded in its (OP No.2) favour. These printed declarations, appended on the application forms, referred to above, were nothing but amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice. These declarations, therefore, could not be said to have been signed by the complainant, of her own volition, but on account of the false representations made to her, and fraud played on her, in the manner, indicated above.
Under these circumstances, the complainant could not be said to be bound by the said declarations, especially, when the same have been proved to be false, from the aforesaid documents. In this view of the matter, the submission of Counsel for the appellant/OP, in Appeal NO.330/2010 that, in view of the declarations, it was not liable to refund the fee, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice, being devoid of merit, must fail and same is rejected.
18. No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties.
19. For the reasons, recorded above, Appeal No.330/2010 titled as ICFAI National College Vs Amrita Sodhi & another is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
20. Appeal No.332/2010 titled Amrita Sodhi Vs ICFAI National College & another, is also dismissed, with no order as to costs, with minor modification that the computer, which was supplied to the complainant /appellant, by the OP institute i.e. ICFAI National College, during the study course, shall be returned by her, to the said institute within a period of 60 days from the receipt of a copy of the order, by issuance of a registered notice, failing which she shall pay the price thereof to OP No.2/appellant in Appeal No.330 of 2010, as was prevailing, on the date of return.
21. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
22. The file be consigned to record room.
Sd/-
Announced (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER) 29th August,2011 President Sd/- ( NEENA SANDHU) *Js Member STATE COMMISSION Appeal case NO.330/2010 Present:
Sh.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Mohit Jaggi,Advocate for respondent NO.1 Dated the 29th day of August,2011 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Neena Sandhu) (Justice Sham Sunder) Member President STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.
Appeal Case No. 332of 2010 Date of institution: 15.09.2010 Date of decision : 29 .8.2011 Amrita Sodhi D/o Shri K.N.S.Sodhi, Resident of House No.1634, Sector-70, District Mohali..
--Appellant Versus
1. ICFAI National College (INC)( now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhasker Building, Sector-25-D, Chandigarh, through its Principal.
2. Shri K.K.Sharma, Principal, ICFAI National College (INC)(now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhasker Building, Sector-25-D, Chandigarh.
-Respondents Present: Sh.Mohit Jaggi,Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Pankaj Gupta , Advocate, for respondents No.1 QUORUM :
Justice Sham Sunder, President Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs, in terms of our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, in connected Appeal case 330of 2010 titled as ICFAI National College Vs Amrita Sodhi & another, with minor modification that the computer, which was supplied to the complainant /appellant, by the OP institute i.e. ICFAI National College, during the study course, shall be returned by her, to the said institute within a period of 60 days from the receipt of a copy of the order, by issuance of a registered notice, failing which she shall pay the price thereof to OP No.2/appellant in Appeal No.330 of 2010, as was prevailing, on the date of return.
A copy of that order be placed on this file, which shall form part of this order.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
Sd/- sd/-
Announced (NEENA SANDHU) (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER) 29.8.2011 Member President