State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vmv Enterprises And Others vs Pritpal Singh on 4 October, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.68 of 2023
Date of institution : 01.02.2023
Date of Reserve : 24.08.2023
Date of Decision : 04.10.2023
1. VMV Enterprises, MC No.3624-B/18, Sears Complex, Level IV,
Bharat Nagar Chowk, Adjoining Amartax, Ferozepur Road,
Ludhiana, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Dinesh Sood, partner of Orane International Unicorn Business
(OIUB), having its office at SCO No.232, 233, 234, Sector 34-A,
Chandigarh.
3. Kuljinder Singh Sidhu, partner of Orane International Unicorn
Business (OIUB), having its office at SCO No.232, 233, 234,
Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
4. OLX School of Multimedia, Corporate Office at Seaz Complex, 4th
Floor, Bharat Nagar, Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through
its Director/Principal/Authorized Signatory.
.......Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Pritpal Singh son of Sh.Joginder Singh, (Himmat Pure Wale),
resident of Gill Nagar, Link Road, Mullanpur, Ludhiana.
.......Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
against the Order dated 21.12.2022
passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission,
Ludhiana in CC No.38 of 2019.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No F.A.No.68 of 2023 2 Present :-
For the appellants : Ms. Anisha Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Amit Sharma, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties i.e. VMV Enterprises & Ors. against the impugned order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (in short "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties (in short 'OPs') was allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Brief facts for disposal of the appeal are that Pritpal Singh complainant had passed 10+2 in the year 2012-13, during further studies he came across an advertisement issued by OP No.1 that they were admitting students in different courses like B.Sc. Animation and Multimedia, short diploma courses etc. on behalf of Karnataka State Open University. He contacted the office of OP No.1 who told him that they had internal arrangement with OXL School of Multimedia and with Orane International Unicorn Business, Chandigarh who were having further tie up with Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd. He believed the OPs and supplied all required documents i.e. Certificate of 10+2 along with detail mark sheet to the representative of OP No.1 namely Vishal Bhutani for granting admission in B.Sc Animation and Multimedia course for the year F.A.No.68 of 2023 3 2013. As per the demand of OP No.1, he was to pay an amount of Rs.2,29,500/- as total fee for obtaining degree in B.Sc Animation and Multimedia course. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,88,500/- to OP No.1 as fee. The complainant had appeared in exams of said course in the academic year 2013-14 and got his detailed Marks Sheet for the first year. Thereafter, the complainant had appeared in the Second Year Exams but OP No.1 did not supply the certificate/detail Marks Sheet. Thereafter, the OPs did not conduct any examination of third year. As per the advice of OP No.1, the complainant contacted the partners of OP No.2, OP No.3 and Ramesh Kumar, the Controller of Exams of Orane International Unicorn Business who issued a letter dated 26.04.2016 stating therein that he had nothing to do with the students and the partners namely Dinesh Sood and Kuljinder Singh Sidhu i.e. OPs No.2&3. It was also mentioned that only they could have solved his issue themselves. Later on the complainant checked the status/result on the website of Karnataka State Open University, Mysore and came to know that his number was not mentioned in the admission list of the students. On further enquiry, he found that the documents issued/supplied by OP No.1 were forged and fabricated and the same were issued by OP No.1 in connivance with the partners and officials of Orane International Unicorn Business. The complainant had been cheated by OPs for a sum of Rs.1,88,500/-. Besides this his valuable period of three years was wasted. The complainant filed an application before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh but no action was taken. This act of OPs amounted to deficiency of service on their part. Hence, the complaint filed by the F.A.No.68 of 2023 4 complainant with the prayer that OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,88,500/- along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs by the District Commission and they appeared and filed their written reply stating therein that the complainant had taken admission in B.Sc. Multimedia diploma/degree course and took admission on 15.06.2013 and also joined the Institute on 21.06.2013. According to the OPs, the complainant had taken admission in the educational institute of the OPs. The total fee for diploma/degree was Rs.2,29,500/- i.e. Rs.1,39,500/- for diploma course and Rs.90,000/- for degree. The complainant had paid only Rs.1,88,500/- and the balance of Rs.40,500/- was outstanding. The course was for a period of three years out of which the diploma course was of two years and the remaining one year was for the degree. The complainant had himself admitted that 80% of the course was completed and he had received the diploma certificate from the OPs. The reason for not conducting the examination of Three Year Degree Course was that UGC had stopped long distance educational courses vide notification dated 21.09.2015. As a result thereof the OPs were not able to continue/complete the degree course as the degree was to be awarded by the Karnataka State Open University. The OPs had further pleaded that in the year 2013, they started a long distance Education Academic Programs in various streams with the help of National Coordinators i.e. Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd. The coordinators had signed a MOU with Karnataka State Open University for providing various types of Courses and Degrees by way F.A.No.68 of 2023 5 of long distance education through a list of Collaborative Studies centers in India. The Branch office of National Coordinator was at Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana. It was further pleaded that the National Coordinator had approached the OPs in the month of March-April 2013 to provide various educational courses and degrees from KSOU (Karnataka State Open University) which were approved by the UGC. The National Coordinator had signed MOU dated 19.03.2012 with Karnataka State Open University, Manasagangotri, Mysore. The Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd. had a further arrangement with certain study centres for imparting the said courses. The course opted by the complainant was mentioned at serial No.158 of MOU. On 02.04.2013, the National Coordinator of Karnataka State Open University sent a letter of approval dated 02.04.2013 issued to the Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd. wherein the list of approved centres were mentioned and the name of Orane International Unicorn Business (OIUB) was also mentioned at serial No.287. Therefore, it was evident that the Vice Chancellor of Karnataka State Open University had approved the study Centre of the OPs on 01.04.2013. It was clearly mentioned that the Central/State Govt. Universities could have conducted the courses through the distance mode in accordance as per the provisions of their respective roles subject to approval of UGC. The UGC had approved/allowed Karnataka State Open University to run the distance education degree courses mentioned at serial No.67 of Annexure-A5 from year 2007-2013. Therefore, it was the duty of National Coordinator of Karnataka State Open University to issue the Degree of the said courses to the students enrolled with them. The F.A.No.68 of 2023 6 degree was to be issued by the University through their National Coordinator (Mindtrek) Gurgaon. It was subject to approval by the Karnataka State Open University through its coordinator as the OPs had started giving admission to the students in various courses from year 2013.
5. It was further mentioned in the written statement that the complainant took admission in the year 2013 in B.Sc. Animation and Multimedia Course which was a full-fledged Diploma/Degree course. The complainant had passed the 1st year examination in the year 2013-2014 and thereafter appeared in 2nd year in the year 2014- 2015. Karnataka State Open University had issued one notification on 21.09.2015 stating that the University had decided to withdraw all the programs offered by Collaborative Institutions through Study Centres approved by KSOU outside/within the territory of State of Karnataka. After getting the Notification, the OPs had immediately contacted the National coordinator of KSOU who had assured the OPs that only the students, who had taken the admission prior to said notification dated 21.09.2015 would get their degrees of 3 years. After the notification dated 21.09.2015, the OP had immediately stopped to give admission to the students. The OPs served upon a legal notice dated 23.01.2016 to the National Coordinator (Mindtrek) to provide Degrees to the students of Karnataka State Open University but no response was received. A legal notice dated 03.02.2016 was issued to Karnataka State Open University for not providing any degrees to the students of various courses. However, no reply was received. Thereafter, a representative of the OPs visited the Karnataka State F.A.No.68 of 2023 7 Open University and the officials of the University had shown all the notifications whereby all the long distance educational courses outside the state were discontinued but he assured that the students who had taken the admission prior to said notification would get the degrees. The University got published a notice in the Newspapers dated 15.04.2016 mentioning that the University would issue a separate notification on getting continuation of recognition from UGC. The students and their parents were requested to wait for further Notification by the University. However, thereafter, nothing was received from the National Coordinator of the University. The OPs had filed a criminal case against the National Coordinator Under Section 406/420/463/464/467/468/471/120-B IPC with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh. As per version of the OPs, the complainant had completed 24 months Diploma Course for 2 years. The Certificate of Diploma was to be provided by the OPs which the complainant had received. The complainant even had lodged a complaint against the OPs at P.S. Chandigarh Sector 34 and also at two more places i.e. Police Station Bathinda and E.O. Wing Ludhiana but no fault on the part of the OPs was found. All other averments made in the complaint had been denied and had prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
6. To prove his case the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex. CA along with the copy of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 before the District Commission and had closed the evidence. In rebuttal, OPs had tendered an affidavit of Ex.RA of Sh. Deepak Kumar, Operational Manager of OXL School of Multimedia F.A.No.68 of 2023 8 along with the copy of documents Ex. A1 to Ex.A11 before the District Commission and closed the evidence.
7. Ms.Anisha Sharma, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant has argued on the similar lines as per the reply filed before the District Commission. Learned counsel has submitted that the order of the District Commission is contrary to the facts and evidence available on the record. The complainant is not a 'consumer' as he does not fall under the definition of 'Consumer' as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The subject of education is not a consumer dispute hence the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has further submitted that District Commission had failed to appreciate the material evidence as well as the judgments which have been placed on record by the appellants/OPs during the final arguments. It clearly shows that the Long Distance Course was discontinued by the National Coordinator of KSOU. There was no fault on the part of appellants/OPs. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission of case titled as "Manu Solanki & Ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University", CC No.261 of 2012 decided on 20.01.2020, in support of her arguments, wherein it has been held that the institutions rendering Education including Vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of Pre-admission as well as Post-admission and also while imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc., except Coaching Institutions, will, therefore, do not cover under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
F.A.No.68 of 20239
8. Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued on the similar lines as per the stand taken before the District Commission. Learned counsel has also submitted that the District Commission had passed the impugned order after observing the averments as made in the complaint and the written reply of the OPs and all documentary evidence as placed on record. Thus, the District Commission had rightly observed that appellants No.2&3 did not have any direct affiliation with the University and they had acted only on behalf of National Coordinator Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd. Only on verification the students had found that they were not registered with Karnataka State Open University as per the claims of OPs with regard affiliation with the said university. It was also observed by the District Commission that that being the service provider, the appellants/OPs were under obligation to ensure that courses being offered by them to the students were under proper/legal affiliation with the University for recognition. The District Commission had passed the order on proper appreciation of facts/document/evidence and as such no interference is required.
9. By considering the averments made in the Complaint as well as in the reply thereof. The complaint filed by the complainant was allowed order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the District Commission. The relevant part of said order is reproduced as under:-
"11. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,88,500/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till F.A.No.68 of 2023 10 actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room."
10. The appellants/OPs have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the District Commission by raising a number of arguments.
11. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission as well as all the relevant documents available on the file.
12. Facts relating to filing of complaint by the complainant before the District Commission, reply thereof and on hearing the oral arguments raised by counsel for the parties and passing of impugned order dated 21.12.2022by the District Commission and thereafter filing of present appeal before this Court by the appellant/complainant are not in dispute.
13. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant had taken admission in B.Sc. Animation and Multimedia for degree course on 15.05.2014. He had deposited an amount of Rs.1,88,500/. As per the version of the OPs, the total fee for diploma/degree course was Rs.2,29,500/. Out of said amount, only an amount of Rs.40,500/- was F.A.No.68 of 2023 11 still pending towards the complainant. The grievance of the complainant was that OP No.1 had a tie up/collaboration with Orane International Unicorn Business-OP No.3. OP No.3 had further tie up with Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd., which had signed a MOU with KSOU. The complainant had suffered being in the hands of OPs in failing in their duty not to provide diploma/degree for the said course from the recognized university.
14. For reaching to the right conclusion, we have perused the documents tendered by the parties. We have observed the sequence of the educational institutes involved in the present dispute and their respective roles are mentioned below:-
Karnataka State Open University (affiliated University for the said course) ↓ Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd. (National Coordinator) ↓ OXL School of Multimedia/Orane International Unicorn Business (OPs No.2,3&4) ↓ VMV Enterprises (OP No.1) (Service provider for the aforesaid stakeholders)
15. In view of the facts as mentioned above it is apparent that National Coordinator i.e. Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd., had signed MOU dated 16.03.2012 (Ex.A-9) with KSOU. A letter dated 02.04.2013 (Ex.A-2) was sent to Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd., by appointing them as academic collaborative institution by KSOU. In the said letter the list of name and addresses of approved Study Centres by KSOU attached to Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd. have been mentioned for the said collaboration. The name of Orane International Unicorn Business which was also appointed an approved study Centre for the said F.A.No.68 of 2023 12 courses figures at Sr.No.287 in the said letter. M/s VMV Enterprises, Ludhiana in turn admitted students on behalf of OPs No.2&3. The complainant after understanding the aforesaid arrangement amongst the above mentioned stakeholders had deposited the fee with OP No.1 (Ex.C-2) and started his diploma/degree course. He was issued a certificate (Ex.C-5) for Advance Diploma in 3D Animation and VFX 24 months June-2013 to August-2015 issued on 10.03.2016 by OXL, School of Multimedia. Nowhere in the said certificate the name of affiliated University has been mentioned i.e. KSOU. It proves the contention of the counsel for the respondent/complainant that complainant was never got registered as a student with KSOU. To ascertain the said issue further we perused a document i.e. notification dated 21.09.2015 (Ex.A-6), wherein it has been communicated regarding discontinuance of recognitions to private institutions to run the courses of KSOU-reg. The MOU executed between Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd. (National Coordinator) and KSOU became null and void henceforth. Meaning thereby all the courses offered by the private institutions affiliated with KSOU ceased to be and they did not have valid recognition from any University.
Thus, the degree could not be conferred upon the respondent/complainant, only a Diploma Certificate was offered to him. Even if the contentions of the appellants/OPs regarding issuance of diploma certificate for the said course is to be believed still it is of no use to the respondent/complainant as it does not bear any valid recognition by any University. The appellants/OPs have not produced any cogent evidence to prove this fact. It is apparent that the complainant was allured to join the course based on F.A.No.68 of 2023 13 contrived/fraudulent documents. He has been fleeced of the fee that he had deposited money with the OPs and his precious time has been wasted in pursuing the course has not been recognized by any authorized University. It is surprising that the National Coordinator i.e. Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd. was not having any knowledge regarding discontinuation of distance learning by KSOU on directions of UGC. The National Coordinator has cheated OPs No.2&3 by projecting that the courses offered through it and had valid recognition with KSOU. The Mindtrek Edutech Pvt. Ltd. has not been impleaded as party by the respondent/complainant.
16. The District Commission had given a well-reasoned findings on proper appreciation of facts and documents, which is reproduced as under:-
10. It is not disputed by the OPs that the Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd. was the National Coordinator of Karnataka State Open University which means that OP2 and OP3 themselves did not have any direct affiliation with the university and they have been acting only on behalf of National coordinator Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. Ltd. It was only later on found by the OP2 and OP3 that they have been cheated by the so called National Coordinator as the DMCs/degrees were not provided by Mindtrek Edu The Pvt.
Ltd. and on verification, the students were not even found to have registered with Karnataka State Open University. Being the service provider, the OPs were under an obligation to ensure that the courses being offered by them to the students were under proper and legal affiliation of a university which also fulfilled the rules, regulations and other norms of University Grant Commission. However, in the instant case, no such care or caution seems to have been taken care by the OPs who till the end did not even come to know that the students being enrolled by them in their institution were even not got registered with the university by the National Coordinator i.e. Mindtrek Edu Tech Pvt. F.A.No.68 of 2023 14 Ltd. and all these facts became known to the OPs at much later stage i.e. in the year 2016 when a complaint Ex. A10 was filed by them with the Chandigarh police on 31.08.2016. Thus, the OPs have miserably failed in their duty towards the hapless students with the result that the valuable time and money of the complainant wasted in the process. The complainant could neither secure a degree nor diploma and at the same time wasted his precious time which he could have pursued his study elsewhere in a proper and legal educational institution. This clearly amounts deficiency of service on the part of the OPs who admittedly obtained a sum of Rs.1,88,500/- from the complainant but miserably failed to provide service expected of them.
17. During the course of oral arguments learned counsel for the appellants/OPs has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission of case titled as "Manu Solanki &Ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University", CC No.261 of 2012 decided on 20.01.2020. We have also gone through the said judgment and are of the opinion that that it is not applicable in the present appeal. The said case relates to breach of implied contract between the complainant and OPs resulting in 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of appellants/OPs by misleading/ misguiding the complainant. Their act has resulted into not only in wastage of precious time but also loss of money of the complainant.
18. Sequel to the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld.
19. The appellants had deposited an amount Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission and further deposited an amount of Rs.1,16,000/- in compliance with order dated F.A.No.68 of 2023 15 06.02.2023 of this Commission. The said amounts, along with interest which has accrued on the amount deposited by the appellants, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The concerned parties may approach the District Commission for release of the same and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law.
20. Since the main case has been disposed of, so all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are accordingly, disposed of.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER October 04, 2023 (Rupinder 2)