State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Krishan Chand vs 1. India Edu Tech, School Of Integrated ... on 6 March, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 77 of 2013 Date of Institution : 20.02.2013 Date of Decision : 06.03.2013 Sh. Krishan Chand Bali son of Sh. Hukam Chand Bali, Lecturer in Physics (Retired), resident of House No.3052, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. India Edu Tech, School of Integrated Learning, 207, 2nd Floor, SCO 445-446, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Singh 2. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Proprietor, India Edu Tech, School of Integrated Learning, 207, 2nd Floor, SCO 445-446, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.01.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties (now respondents), for doing Ph.D in Physics. According to the complainant, the Opposite Parties represented to him, that he would get Ph.D degree, in Physics, within a period of two years, as he was already M.Phil. in the subject. It was also represented to the complainant, by the Opposite Parties, that he could get himself registered with Singhania University, for the purpose of doing Ph.D in Physics, and that the guide would be appointed, who would supervise the course. Representation was also made to the complainant, that the Opposite Parties would submit the synopsis, in the said University, by April, 2011 and get the same approved. It was stated that the thesis was to be submitted by December 2012 and March, 2013 and, thereafter, the Ph.D degree was to be conferred.
3. It was further stated that the complainant, induced by the false assurances of the Opposite Parties, paid a sum of Rs.42,000/- on 23.12.2010 and Rs.36,000/- on 08.12.2011, vide Annexures C-1 and C-2, respectively. The complainant was enrolled with the Opposite Parties, on 23.12.2010, and was provisionally registered with Singhania University on that date, vide Annexure C-3. It was further stated that, thereafter, the Opposite Parties did not fulfill their commitments of getting permanent registration, appointment of guide and submission/ approval of synopsis. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties, a number of times, but they did not even arrange a guide, who had to assign a topic for synopsis and guide him, in preparing the same (synopsis), which was to be submitted to the University by April, 2011. Ultimately, a legal notice dated 07.06.2012 Annexure C-4, through regd. post, receipt whereof is Annexure C-5, was served upon the Opposite Parties. In reply dated 04.06.2012 Annexure C-6, the Opposite Parties stated that the complainant had failed to submit his synopsis, within 24 months of his registration, as per the University Regulations, and, therefore, he had to go for extension, for the next year, as also to pay fee, for the third year. It was further stated that there was no fault, on the part of the complainant. It was further stated that the entire blame, lay on the shoulders of the Opposite Parties, in non- fulfilling the commitments, made by them, to the complainant, at the initial stage. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, were many a time, asked to redress the grievance of the complainant, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. 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, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.78,000/-, paid by the complainant, for the degree aforesaid, alongwith interest @18% P.A., till realization; compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-
4. Despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of the Opposite Parties, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum.
5. The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice
7. Ultimately, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the admission stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the complainant has already done his M.Phil, in Physics, and is a retired Assistant Professor, from the Government College for Girls, Sector 11, Chandigarh, and at present, the Head of Department, Department of Applied Sciences, in Indo Global College, Abhipur, Mohali. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties, made a representation, to the complainant, when he approached them, that they will get him registered with Singhania University, for the purpose of doing Ph.D, and would help him, in the matter of appointment of Guide for him, who will supervise the course. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties, also represented to the complainant, that they would submit the synopsis, in the University, by April 2011, and get the same approved. He further submitted that even respondent no.2, further represented to the appellant/complainant, that the thesis will be got submitted, by December 2012 and March 2013, and the Ph.D. degree would be conferred upon him. He further submitted that, induced by the false assurances and misrepresentations made by the Opposite Parties, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.42,000/- on 23.12.2010 and Rs.36,000/- on 08.12.2011, but the Opposite Parties did not fulfill the commitments, made by them, to him (complainant). He further submitted that the representations, made by the Opposite Parties, were proved to be false. He further submitted that, as such, the complainant was entitled to the refund of amount, paid by him, as fees, towards the said degree, with interest, as also compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
11. The appellant/complainant is a retired Assistant Professor, from the Government College of Girls, Sector 11, Chandigarh. As per the averments, contained in the complaint, duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant, he, at present is the Head of Department, Department of Applied Sciences in Indo Global College, Abhipur, Mohali. The appellant/complainant is already M.Phil., in Physics. Under these circumstances, the complainant very well knew, as to what procedure, was required to be adopted, for getting himself registered, for the submission of thesis and getting the Ph.D. degree, in the relevant subject. He must also be knowing the procedure required to be followed, as per the relevant Rules, and Regulations of the concerned University, in which he got himself registered, for pursuing the course for conferring the Ph.D. degree. It, therefore, could not be said that the complainant was induced by the alleged false assurances, and representations, made by the Opposite Parties. Annexure C-3 is a copy of the letter dated 23.12.2010 of Singhania University, addressed to the complainant. It is evident, from this letter, that the research proposal for Ph.D. (PHYSICS) program of the complainant was provisionally registered, with the said University, for the session 2010. In this very letter, the registration number was mentioned as 1050110805, and the date of registration was mentioned as 23.12.2010. It was also clearly mentioned, in this letter, that as per the Regulations for the Ph.D. degree, the candidate was required to submit a synopsis, to the University, within six months, from the date of registration. This letter was produced by the complainant himself. From this letter, it is further evident, that the complainant was governed by the Academic Regulations of the University. An oral representation, allegedly made by the Opposite Parties, if the same ran contrary to the Academic Regulations of Singhania University, did not have any significance. There is nothing, on record, that the complainant, on receipt of this letter, submitted the synopsis, within the stipulated time. If, he did not submit the synopsis to Singhania University, within the stipulated time, as mentioned in Annexure C-3, then the Opposite Parties, could not be blamed, for any alleged act of omission and commission. By not submitting the synopsis, as directed vide letter dated 23.12.2010, within the stipulated time, the blame squarely lay, on the shoulders of the complainant. If the complainant did not submit the synopsis, within the stipulated time, as mentioned in Annexure C-3, it could not be said that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties.
12. Not only this, another letter Annexure C-6, dated 04.06.2012, from the Admission Coordinator of the Opposite Parties, was received by the complainant. In this letter, he was directed to join his course work for Ph.D., which was going on in Singhania University Campus, District Jhunjhunu of Rajasthan, as per the UGC and University`s latest Rules and Regulations, for the completion of Ph.D. Doctorate Degree Course. He was further informed, vide this letter that, for any other information, notifications or other Regulations, he should have to access the University Official website http://sighaniauniversity.co.in, or contact Dr.Anil Yadav, Registrar, Singhania University. It was further intimated, vide this letter that, in case, the complainant failed to submit his research work, within the specified time limit, he will have to go in for extension, for next year and had to deposit third year fees, for completing research work, in the concerned Department. He was also intimated that he will be deregistered and his enrollment may be cancelled, by the University, if he did not clear the course work, in the University Campus, as per the Guidelines of the University. It was further stressed that he should complete the research/course work, well within time, to continue his Ph.D. degree programme, from Singhania University. Once, the complainant was registered for Ph.D. degree programme, with Singhania University, it was for him, to follow the Rules and Regulations of the said University, for doing his Ph.D. course. The Opposite Parties could only guide him. The Opposite Parties were not running the University, nor could they confer degree of Ph.D upon him. Since the complainant did not fulfill the requirements, mentioned in the aforesaid letters, how it could be imagined that he (complainant) could get Ph.D. degree from Singhania University, without joining the course, as intimated vide letter dated 04.06.2012 Annexure C-6, which was a necessary requirement for doing the same.
13. No doubt, the bald assertions were made by the complainant, in the complaint, regarding false representations having been made to him, by the Opposite Parties, which he attempted to prove through his affidavit, by way of evidence. It may be stated here, that such bald assertions, in the face of the documentary evidence i.e. Annexures C-3 and C-6, have no relevance at all. It is settled principle of law, that if there is a documentary evidence, and the oral evidence, contrary to each other, to prove a particular point, then the former will prevail, over the latter. Thus, Annexures C-3 and C-6, very important documents, produced by the complainant, himself, would prevail over the bald assertions, made by him, regarding the alleged representations, held out by the Opposite Parties, to him.
14. No doubt, reliance was placed by the Counsel for the appellant on M/s Gupta Trading Company Vs. General Manager Telephone (I), 1992 (2) CPC 674 and Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. Ranjit Kaur, 2004 (2) CPC 128, two cases, decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, in support of his contention, that in summary consumer Jurisdiction, facts could be proved by way of filing an affidavit.
There is, no dispute, with regard to the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. Had there been no documentary evidence, in the shape of Annexures C-3 and C-6, the averments, contained in the complaint, duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant, would have been sufficient, to prove his case. However, in the face of documentary evidence, in the shape of Annexures C-3 and C-6, which runs contrary to the averments, contained in the complaint, and also the affidavit, submitted by the appellant/complainant, by way of evidence, no help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. As stated above, the documentary evidence, on a particular point, if runs contrary to the oral evidence, shall have precedence over the latter. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
19. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
20. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
06.03.2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg