National Consumer Disputes Redressal
International College Of Financial ... vs Subhamoy Das & Anr. on 28 June, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1684 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 56/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. DHANANJAY AGARWAL S/O. PRAHLAD PRASAD, R/O. TALIVPUR, P.O. AND P.S. BARH, DISTRICT-PATNA-803213 BIHAR ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1750 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 40/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. ARINDOM ROY S/O ASHOKE KUMAR ROY, R/O SUKUL ROAD, KRISHNAGAR, KRISHNAGAR-I, NADIA WEST BENGAL-741101 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR-10, OPPOSITE DDA SPORTS COMPLEX DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1751 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 41/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NOTAN SASMAL S/O. PARUL BALA SASMAL, R/O. RABINDRA NAJRUL SADAN, PANSKURA BALIDANGRI, EAST MIDNAPORE, WEST BENGAL-721139 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 42/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. AVISHEK BANERJEE S/O. DEBNATH BANERJEE, R/O. MAKARDAHA NOTUN BARI, BANERJEE PARA, HOWRAH-711409 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1753 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 43/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. SUMIT AGARWAL S/O. LT. SHYAM SUNDER AGARWAL, C/O. AGARWAL PLYWOOD VPO JHANTIPAHARI, THANA CHHATNA-722137 DISTRICT-BAKURA, WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1754 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 44/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. QUAZI MD. MASUM S/O. SH. QUAZI MD. MONIR, R/O. VILLAGE RAMCHANDRAPUR, P.O. PAHALAMPUR, P.S. SINGUR, HOOGLY-712223 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1755 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 45/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. MD. SHAKIL AHMED S/O. LT. MD. KALIMUDDIN, R/O. 65, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE, POST BOW BAZAR, KOLKATA-700012 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1756 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 46/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. KUNAL DEEP S/O. BISHESHWAR RAM, R/O. VPO ORIYA POLICE STATION MUFFASIL DISTRICT-HAZARIBAG JHARKHAND-825301 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1757 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 47/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. MD. IMRAN NEZAM S/O. MD. NEZAMUDDIN, R/O. 32, KHUDIRAM BOSE SARANI, KOLKATA-700037 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1758 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 48/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. KRISHANU CHATTERJEE S/O. KISHORE CHATTERJEE, R/O. A-138, LAKE GARDEN, KOLKATA-700045 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1759 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 49/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. JAVED RAHAMAN S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, R/O. 20P M BASTI, IST BY LANE, FIRST FLOOR, SAIBPUR, HOWRAH-711102 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1760 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 50/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. MADHUMITA BHATTACHARYA D/O. SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYA, R/O. 274, NORTH DURGANAGAR, P.O. RABINDRANAGAR, P.S. NIMTA, KOLKATA-700065 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1761 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 51/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. SUBHAMOY DAS S/O. SASANKAR DAS, R/O. VPO DONACHAK, P.S. MOYNA, DISTRICT- PURBA MEDNIPUR-721644 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1762 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 52/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. RAHUL BHATTACHARJEE S/O. RATAN MANI BHATTACHARJEE, R/O. SADHAK RAMPRASAD ROAD,NAJIRA PARA, NILER MATH, KRISHNAGAR, NADIA-741101 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1763 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 53/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. GAURAV KESRI S/O. JAY PRAKASH KESRI, R/O. FLAT NO. 14, SANYAL APARTMENT, 92 P.K. GUHA ROAD, KOLKATA-700028 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1764 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 54/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. RATAN MONDAL S/O. KHISTISH CHANDRA MONDAL, R/O. 74, SISTER NIVEDITA ROAD, KOLKATA-700063 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1765 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 55/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. BARUN CHANDA S/O. BIDYUT KUMAR CHANDA, R/O. 13, BROAD STREET, FLAT NO. 5TH UTTARA HOUSING KOLKATA-700019 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1766 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 57/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. RANA DEBNATH S/O. ASHUTOSH DEBNATH, R/O. 113, UNIQUE PARK,KRISHNA APARTMENT, FLAT NO. 1-B, KOLKATA-700034, WES BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANR. REGD. OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, BAJAJ HOUSE 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 2. IASE UNIVERSITY PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1823 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 40/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ARINDAM ROY & ANR. S/O. ASHOK KUMAR ROY, 69. HB STREET KATHURIA PARA, KRISHNA NAGAR, DISTRICT-NADIA-741101 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1824 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 41/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NOTAN SASMAL & ANR. R/O. DHAKURIA SHRI RAMAKRISHNA ASHRAM, 16, TEMPLE LANE, DHAKURIA, KOLKATA-700031 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1825 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 42/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. AVISHEK BANERJEE & ANR. R/O. A-138, LAKE GARDEN KOLKATA-700045 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1826 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 43/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUMIT AGARWAL& ANR. S/O. SH. SHYAM SUNDER AGARWAL, 73/3, GOLF CLUB ROAD,(GROUND FLOOR) KOLKATA-700033 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1827 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 44/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. QUAZI MD. MASUM & ANR. R/O. VILLAGE RAMCHANDRAPUT, PO PAHALAMPUR, PS SINGUR, DISTRICT-HOOGHLY-712223 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1828 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 45/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHAKIL AHMED & ANR. S/O. SH. MOHD, KALIMUDDIN, 65, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE, KOLKATA-700012 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1829 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 46/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KUNAL DEEP & ANR. S/O. SH. BISHESHWAR RAM, FLAT NO. 2, HB-305, SALT LAKE, SECTOR 3, KOLKATA-700106 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1830 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 47/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. IMRAN NEZAM & ANR. S/O. SH. MD. NEZAM UDDIN, 83-A/1B, KHUDIRAM BOSE SARANI, KOLKATA-700037 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1831 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 48/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KRISHANU CHATTERJEE & ANR. S/O. SH. KISHORE CHATTERJEE, R/O. A-138, LAKE GARDEN, KOLKATA-700045 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1832 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 49/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JAVED RAHMAN & ANR. 20 PM BUSTI, 1ST BYE LANE, SHIBPUR, HOWRAH-711102 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1833 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 502014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MADHUMITA BHATTACHARYA & ANR. R/O. 12/2, SOUTH AVENUE MODERN PARK KOLKATA-700075 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1834 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 51/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUBHAMOY DAS & ANR. R/O. VILLAGE AND POST DONACHAK P.S. MOYNA, DISTRICT-PURBA MEDINIPUR-721644 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1835 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 52/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAHUL BHATTACHARJEE & ANR. S/O. SH. RATAN MANI BHATTACHARJEE, NAJIRAPARA NILERMATH RAM KRISHNA NAGAR, DISTRICT-NADIA-741101 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 53/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GAURAV KESRI & ANR. SANYAL APARTMENT FLAT NO. 14, 92, P.K. GUHA ROAD, KOLKATA-700028 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1837 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 40/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ARINDAM ROY & ANR. 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1838 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 55/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BARUN CHANDA & ANR. 13, BROAD STREET FLAT NO. 5H, UTTARA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY KOLKATA-700019 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1839 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 56/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DHANANJAY & ANR. R/O. TALIVPUR, P.O. AND PS. BARH, DISTRICT-PATNA-803213 BIHAR 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1840 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2017 in Appeal No. 57/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAJAJ HOUSE 5TH FLOOR, 97, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RANA DEBNATH & ANR. S/O. SH. ASHUTOSH DEBNATH, 20/13, AND 14 KPT COLONY, TARATALA ROAD, KOLKATA-700088 WEST BENGAL 2. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCTION UNIVERSITY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, SECTOR 10, OPP. DDA SPORTS COMPLEX, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : IN RP/1684/2018 & RP/1750-1766/2018
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. MADHURENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE
MR. RISHABH SINGH, ADVOCATE
IN RP/1823-1840/2018
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. PAWAN KUMAR RAY, ADVOCATE
MS. MEGHA SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : IN RP/1684/2018 & RP/1750-1766/2018
FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. PAWAN KUMAR RAY, ADVOCATE
MS. MEGHA SINGH, ADVOCATE
IN RP/1823-1840/2018
FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. MADHURENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE
MR. RISHABH SINGH, ADVOCATE
Dated : 28 June 2024 ORDER
This common Order shall decide these 36 Revision Petitions, numbered RP/1684/2018 & RP/1750-1766/2018 along with RP/1823 - 1840/2018 filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. These petitions challenge the impugned orders dated 12.12.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (the State Commission), pertaining to 18 Appeals Nos. FA/40/2014 to FA/57/2014. The State Commission modified the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-1, Kolkata ('District Forum') in 18 Consumer Complaints filed by the Complainants.
There was a delay of 86 days in filing RP/1684/2018 and 84 days in filing RP/1750-1766/2018. Considering the reasons stated in the applications and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.
Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the 36 Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in Dates & events, these 36 Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. To facilitate clarity and convenience, First Appeal No. 56/2014 shall be considered as the primary / lead case, with the facts outlined below being extracted from Consumer Complaint No. 401/2009.
For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum and the State Commission.
The pivotal issue across these 36 Revision Petitions revolves around determining whether educational institutions or services provided by them fall under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act?
Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that OP-1 operates a study centre offering a Post Graduate Diploma in Financial Planning (PGDFP) through distance mode, authorized by OP-2 under the authorization code IASE-U/D/127. Relying on advertisements by OP-1 in newspapers and on its official website, the Complainant had sought admission and clarification regarding UGC recognition of the course. Based on information provided by OP-1, the Complainant enrolled in the PGDFP course for the academic year 2008-09, paying a total fee of Rs. 1,80,000. At the time of admission, OP-1 asserted that the course was UGC-recognized, based on documents from IASE University. OP-1 guaranteed 100% placement on course completion, as outlined in their placement policy. Additionally, OP-1 claimed the classrooms were Wi-Fi enabled and that students would participate in live market visits and projects. He was also informed that multiple certificates would be issued without further fees. The official website listed various students who had benefited from these promises. The website also depicted amenities such as a café and multiple clubs, which were never provided. Having completed a graduation course from Calcutta University, the Complainant enrolled in PGDFP program conducted by OP-1, expecting a mark sheet issued by OP-2. However, the mark sheets for Semesters 1 and 2 were issued by OP-1 and were strangely handwritten. Despite completing the course, no diploma certificate was provided. Repeated reminders and campus visits were of no consequence. The Complainant also did not receive the promised placement.
Due to OP-1's actions, the Complainant suffered significant loss and harassment. Consequently, he filed Consumer Complaint No. 401 of 2009 before the District Forum, seeking a refund of course fees from OP-1, issuance of the diploma certificate by OP-2, and compensation from OP-1 along with litigation costs.
In reply before the learned District Forum, OP-1 contended that OP-1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its corporate office in New Delhi. It is engaged in imparting corporate training and job-oriented courses in financial services such as financial planning, analysis, stock trading, insurance, and retirement planning. OP-1 contended that it is an authorized education provider of the Financial Planning Standards Board India (FPSB) and the PGDFP course, launched in 2004 in Delhi and subsequently expanded to other cities including Kolkata, Mumbai, and Chennai is designed to prepare students for industry-relevant jobs. OP-1 emphasized that it provides only assistance to students for internships and opportunities for placements and it does not claim any affiliation or recognition with any university or UGC approval. As regards Complainant's allegations, it was asserted by OP-1 that, as per their terms and conditions, the admission fees is non-refundable under any circumstances. The cancellation requests made after 15 days of enrolment or after commencement of classes are not eligible for refund. OP-1 contended that the Complainant successfully completed PGDFP course by clearing both semesters. Despite arranging placement interviews, he failed to secure a position due to personal reasons. OP-1 also referred to an incident involving a group of students from the 2008-09 batch disrupting campus operations, prompting OP-1 to file an application under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) and issue a public notice clarifying its autonomous status and lack of affiliation with any university or government body. Also, OP-1 disclosed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with OP-2 in 2008, which was contingent upon meeting university norms and parameters that were not ultimately fulfilled. OP-1 contended the complaint to be vague baseless and sought that he complaint be dismissed with costs.
In reply, OP-2 denied all material allegations and contended that the complaint is not maintainable against it. OP-2 emphasized that it is a deemed university recognized by the UGC under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. OP-2 conducts courses in various professional subjects, award diplomas and qualifications to successful candidates. In addition own campus programmes, OP-2 operates a Directorate of Distance Education offering degrees, diplomas and certificates through authorized study centers. OP-2 recounted that OP-1 sought authorization to conduct a study center for the Post Graduate Diploma in Financial Planning (PGDFP). Based on OP-1's request, OP-2 entered into an MOU on 02.01.2008. Subsequently, on 01.04.2008, OP-2 granted provisional authorization to OP-1, valid till March 2009. However, OP-2 discovered that OP-1 was independently offering diploma courses in financial planning, charging exorbitant fees, making false promises, and issuing mark sheets without its endorsement or participation. OP-2 clarified that it was not involved in framing syllabi, preparing course material, setting examination papers, conducting examinations, or issuing mark sheets for these courses. Thus, OP-2 disclaimed responsibility for any unauthorized/ illegal actions of OP-1. OP-2 issued a letter on 23/24.12.2009, directing OP-1 to explain why appropriate action should not be taken against them. OP-1, in reply dated 23.12.2009, claimed to have not acted on the provisional authorization due to concerns about the validity of diplomas and degrees from a deemed university affiliated with an educational institution under the distance mode. OP-2 clarified they had not sponsored or enrolled any students with OP-1 for the PGDFP course. Therefore, his grievances could only be against OP-1, as there was no legal relationship between OP-2 and him. OP-2 sought for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The learned District Commission vide Order dated 13.12.2013 allowed the complaint against OP-1 and dismissed against OP-2 as follows:-
"Hence, ordered, That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against o.p. no.1 with cost and dismissed against o.p. no.2 without cost.
O.p. no.1 is directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant and is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment sustained by the complainant and is also directed to pay the litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only.
O.p. no.1 is further directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only towards punitive damage out of which Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only is payable to the complainant and balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) is payable to the State Consumer Welfare Fund, Govt. of West Bengal, Consumer Affairs Deptt. For carrying on unfair trade practice.
O.p. no.1 is directed to comply the aforesaid order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum till full realization of the awarded amount."
Being aggrieved by the Order of the District Commission, OP-1 i.e. International College of Financial Planning filed Appeal No. 56 of 2014 and the learned State Commission vide Order dated 12.12.2017, modified the District Forum order as follows:-
"So far as the reliefs given in favour of complainant/ respondent no. 1 is concerned, as quoted earlier Ld. Trial Forum passed an order directing the appellant to pay such a huge amount which cannot be termed as compensation, since the same being a bonanza. However taking into consideration the facts of the case, the nature of allegations, the reliefs sought for etc. we are of the opinion that refund of 50% of the course fee, compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand) would suffice the ends of justice. The Appeal is thus disposed of and the reliefs are given to the complainant/respondent no. 1 in a modified form. Parties do bear their respective costs of appeal. The order of dismissal passed by Ld. Trial Forum against respondent no. 2/OP no. 2 i.e. IASE University stands affirmed."
Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 12.12.2017 both the Complainants and OP-1 have filed separate Revision Petitions. The Complainant has filed Revision Petition No. 1684/2018 against both OP-1 (International College of Financial Planning) and OP-2 (IASE University). And OP-1 filed Revision Petition No. 1839/2018 against the Complainant and OP-2.
In RP No.1684 of 2018, the Complainant/Petitioner taken the ground that he is entitled to all the reliefs sought by him and granted by the District Forum.
In RP No. 1684/2018, Respondent No. 1 (OP-1) filed reply, contesting the maintainability of the case and contended that the revision petition disregards the well-established principle the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in P.T. Koshy and Ors. vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors., reported as 2012(3)C.P.C. 615, and this Commission in Rabindra Bharti University vs Jyoti Roychowdhary & Ors reported as MANU/ CF/0744/2017. These establish that education is not a commodity, and educational institutions do not provide services that fall under the purview of consumer protection laws. Therefore, the present case squarely falls within the ambit of the aforementioned settled principles, and the lower fora have erroneously disregarded judicial precedents by allowing the complaint, contrary to judicial propriety and sanctity.
In RP/1684/2018, Respondent No. 2 (OP-2) did not file any reply. However, it was noted in the order dated 09.05.2014 that the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 stated that International College of Financial Planning (OP-1) is a deemed university recognized under Section 3 of the UGC Act. Respondent No. 2 clarified that they had not granted any permission or authorization to OP-1 to conduct any diploma or certificate courses. Furthermore, it was emphasized that there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner (Complainant) in question and OP-2.
In their arguments, the learned counsel for Complainants/Petitioners reiterated the facts of the case and emphasized that both the State Commission and the District Forum have unanimously held that Respondent No. 1/OP-1 was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices against them. They cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2011 titled Mrs. Rubi (Chandra Dutta) Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., highlighting that the jurisdictional power of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 can only be invoked in cases of jurisdictional error, and not to re-examine the facts of the case. He further argued that the order dated 20.01.2020 of this Commission in CC/261/2012 in Manu Solanki & Ors. Vs. Vinayaka Mission University & Ors. and other connected matters, was not favorable to OP-1/ Respondent No. 1. They pointed out that the consumer complaints in these cases dealt with instances of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by OP-1, despite not being affiliated with any university nor recognized by UGC or any government body. Therefore, the actions of OP-1 squarely fall within the statutory provisions of the Act, 1986. He asserted that they are entitled to all the reliefs sought by them and granted by the District Forum. He sought that all connected Revision Petitions filed by the Complainants be allowed and all Revision Petitions filed by OP-1 be dismissed with costs.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP-1/Respondent No.1, reiterated the facts of the case and argued that 'Education' is not a commodity. Thus, educational institutions, including universities, do not render any 'service' while providing education and collecting fees. He, therefore, contended that not only are the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, but also the cross-revision petitions filed by the Complainants and all other connected Revision Petitions by them are not maintainable and should be dismissed. In support of this argument, Respondent No. 1 relied on the following judgments:
Manu Solanki & Ors. v. Vinayaka Mission University; 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 7.
British School v Poonam Awadh;2019SCC OnLine NCDRC398.
M.J.P. Rohailkhand University & Anr. v. Ravindra Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 490.
PT Koshy & Anr v Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors, 2012(3)CPC 615 (SC).
Maharashi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (3) CPC 615 (SC).
Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha; 2009 (8) SCC 483.
Gagan Kumar v. Gaurav Bajaj & Ors: 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 932.
Rabindra Bharti v Jayati Roy; 2017SCC OnLine NCDRC 1954 On merits, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 contended that the lower forums erroneously consolidated all 18 matters into a single order despite distinct factual differences among them. Also, the Complainants failed to provide any records or evidence to demonstrate that OP-1 advertised the issue of multiple certificates without additional fees or falsely represented that the course was recognized by UGC. It was emphasized that 11 of the 18 students were enrolled in the course prior to 05.05.2008, before the alleged forged letter dated 08.05.2008 came into play. Thus, they could not have been misled by a letter issued after they were already enrolled. The lower fora neglected to consider several contentions of OP-1 while issuing the impugned order. He sought Revision Petition No. 1839 of 2018 filed by OP-1, along with other connected revision petitions be granted.
I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties.
The main issue is to determine whether educational institutions or services provided by them fall under the ambit of the Act? This question is crucial as it affects the jurisdiction of consumer fora over disputes involving educational institutions.
Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha, reported in IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), has clarified this issue. The Court held that the Bihar School Examination Board does not offer "service" to any candidate, nor does any student hire or avail of any "service" from the Board for a consideration. Paragraph No. 10 of the said decision is reproduced below:
"10. The Board is a statutory authority established under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. The function of the Board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its "services" to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having competence vis-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination."
A 'Larger Bench' of this Commission in Manu Solanki and Ors vs. Vinayaka Mission University and other connected cases reported in I (2020) CPJ 210 (NC) had held that educational matters do not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, complaints filed by in such matters are deemed not maintainable. This precedent aligns with the position that educational institutions and the services they provide are not considered "services" under the Consumer Protection Act.
As a result, consumer fora do not have jurisdiction over disputes pertaining to educational services, thereby reinforcing the conclusion that the present complaints are not maintainable under the said Act. Based on the discussion above, I am of the considered view that the Impugned Orders passed by the fora below suffer from material illegality and are erroneous. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned State Commission is set aside. Consequently, 18 Revision Petitions viz. Nos. RP/1823-1840/2018 filed by the OP-1/International College of Financial Planning are allowed.
Additionally, I do not find any merit in the 18 Revision Petitions Nos. RP/1684/2018 and RPs/1750-1766/2018 filed by the Complainants/ Petitioners, and the same are dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission dated 12.12.2017 is set aside, and all connected Complaints filed by the Complainants before the Ld. District Forum are also dismissed.
Needless to say, the Complainants have right to approach appropriate legal fora to seek relief in respect of their grievances against the opposite parties. They may also seek benefit of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in doing so.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.
27. All other pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
................................................................................... AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER