State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sargam vs Shiv Shakti Institute on 12 July, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 19 of 2009
Date of institution: 27.03.2009
Date of decision : 12.07.2012
1. Sargam d/o Sh.Mohinder Nath Qt. No.15, T-3 Power Colony, Unchi
Bassi, Hoshiarpur.
2. Amanjot Gill s/o Sh.Amrik Singh, VPO Kad Gill, Tehsil & Distt.
Tarn Taran.
3. Varinder Kahlon d/o Sh.Harjit Singh, H.No.50, Ward No.4, Adarsh
Mohalla, Nabha Gate, Phirni Road, Sangrur.
4. Amanpreet Kaur d/o Sh.N.S.Chahal, 99/3, Phase-9, Mohali.
5. Asheta C.S. D/o Sh.C.K.Soman House No.109, Phase-2, Mohali.
6. Deepka Rani d/o Sh.Ram Lal, Vill. Chakk Mai Dass, P.O. Sarhal
Rauna, Nawanshahr.
7. Eisha d/o Sh.Dharma Pal, B-116, New Ashok Nagar, Salem Tabri,
Ludhiana.
8. Gurinder Kaur d/o Sh.Rajbir Singh, 46-B, Guru Ram Dass Avenue,
Ajnala Road, Gumtala, Amritsar.
9. Harpreet Kaur d/o Sh.Ram Singh, VPO Cheema, Tehsil Sunam,
Sangrur.
10. Sanjeet Kaur d/o Sh.Udham Singh, Vill. Nanowal Kalan, Tehsil
Khamano, Fatehgarh Sahib.
11. Harshwinder Kaur d/o Sh.Ashok Singh c/o Papoo Patne Wala, VPO
Bhagta Bhai, Tehsil Phool, Bathinda.
12. Jaspreet Kaur d/o Sh.Avtar Singh, VPO Chema, Tehsil Sunam,
Sangrur.
13. Jaswinder Kaur d/o Sh.Sukhnaib Singh Indira Basti, Tehsil Sunam,
Sangrur.
14. Kamalpreet Kaur d/o Sh.Dalbir Singh, VPO Ghuman, Tehsil Batala,
Distt. Gurdaspur.
15. Kawanljeet Kaur d/o Sh.Mukhtiar Singh, 65-A, Hardev Nagar, Lane
No.8, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar.
16. Kiranpreet Kaur d/o Sh.Randhir Singh, VPO Hathaur, Tehsil Jagraon,
Distt. Ludhiana.
Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 2
17. Karanpreet Kaur d/o Sh.Gian Singh, Vill. Dodra, Tehsil Budhlada,
District Mansa.
18. Manjinder Kaur d/o Sh.Darshan Singh, VPO Tungwali, Distt.
Bathinda.
19. Navdeep Kaur d/o Sh.Iqbal Singh, VPO Cheema, Tehsil Sunam,
Sangrur.
20. Navdeep Kaur d/o Sh.Balbir Singh, Vill. Dhoot Khurd, P.O. Sikri,
Distt. Hoshiarpur.
21. Navdeep Kaur d/o Sh.Kashmir Singh, Vill. Kokalpur, P.O. Dhandoi,
Tehsil Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur.
22. Palvi Bhalla d/o Lt.Sh.Kuldip Singh, VPO Shri Hargobind Pura,
Tehsil Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur.
23. Pardeep Kaur d/o Sh.Ram Rajinder Singh, Vill Bir Kalan, P.O.
Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, Sangrur.
24. Rupinder Kaur d/o Sh.Gurjant Singh, Gali No.4, Link College Road,
Preet Nagar, Mansa.
25. Rajwinder Kaur d/o Sh.Sadhu Singh, W.No.10, Talwandi Bhai, Distt.
Ferozepur.
26. Ramandeep Kaur d/o Sh.Balihar Singh, Vill. Lakhanpur, P.O.
Khamano, Fatehgarh Sahib.
27. Rajvir Kaur d/o Sh.Gurbal Singh, VPO Tugal, Tehsil Raikot.
28. Rajdeep Kaur d/o Sh.Karam Singh, VPO Vaziet Ke Khurd, Tehsil &
Distt. Barnala.
29. Rajpreet Kaur d/o Sh.Jagdish Singh, VPO Rauke Kalan, Tehsil Nihal
Singh Wala, Distt. Moga.
30. Ramanjot Kaur d/o Sh.Jaswinder Singh, VPO Ramgarh, Tehsil
Phillaur, Jalandhar.
31. Sonia D/o Sh.Shanti Lal, VPO Karimpur Chahwala, Tehsil Balachaur,
Distt. Nawanshahr.
32. Simarpreet Kaur D/o Sh.Varinder Singh, 27 Dharampura, Kot Mangal
Singh, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar.
33. Sukhdeep Kaur d/o Sh.Chanchal Singh, New Talwandi Road, Ward
No.15, Zira, Ferozepur.
34. Shinder Kaur d/o Sh.Najar Singh, VPO Cheema, Tehsil Sunam,
Sangrur.
Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 3
35. Harpreet Singh s/o Sh.Jagtar Singh, Hargobind Nagar, Malout.
36. Amanjot Kaur d/o Sh.Balraj Singh, Vill. Garga, P.O. Mirpur Hans,
Tehsil Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana.
...Complainants
Versus
1. Shiv Shakti Institute of Nursing through Director Shri Som Nath
Mehta, Bhikhi, District Mansa, Punjab.
2. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences through Registrar, Faridkot,
Punjab.
...Respondents
Complaint under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
Mr.Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the complainants : Sh.H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh.G.L.Bajaj, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : None
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by 36 complainants claiming refund of the fee paid by them to OP respondent No.1 Shiv Shakti Institute of Nursing. Their contention is that they took admission in B.Sc. Nursing Course in the institution of OP No.1 for the year 2007-08 after paying the requisite fee; that at the time of admission, it was assured that they would be provided with latest facilities along with well qualified faculty and technical training in the reputed hospitals.
2. The college charged full fee in advance including hostel fee, mess charges and security as mentioned in Annexure P1. The hostel rooms Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 4 were having triple occupancy and instead of sharing the room rent proportionately from all the three occupants for each room as per the University Rules, OP No.1 charged full rent from each of the students on actual basis. OP No.1 also collected mess charges for whole year in advance which is against the rules. Though the same diet was provided to GNM students and B.Sc. Nursing students but the latter were charged double the mess charges than the GNM students for the same food provided to them. It was alleged that the complainants were forced to pay Rs.2,000/- for a religious tour arranged by the college though none of the complainants were ready for the tour but the college made it mandatory and compelled them to pay the charges. According to them, the College failed to provide requisite qualified faculty for teaching the students and the GNM staff was deputed to teach the B.Sc. nursing students. The complainants made repeated requests but the OP college made no attempt to appoint full time qualified staff. However, during various inspections conducted by the University and other statutory bodies, the college showed fictitious faculty because out of 12 teachers mentioned in the list dated 8.7.2008 submitted by the college, 10 faculty members including the Principal were never seen in the college campus. The other two teachers also left the college after sometime. Out of 40 students, 37 made complaints to the University officials and submitted their affidavits, upon which, OP No.2 verified the facts and, thereafter, the University adjusted them in some other colleges. The affiliation of OP No.1 was, accordingly withdrawn against which OP No.1 filed CWP No.14397 of 2008 before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and during the pendency of the same, another enquiry was conducted by the University and the affiliation was declined. The writ petition filed by OP No.1 was, accordingly, dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. The case of the Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 5 complainant is that since the College failed to provide proper facilities to the complainant, it amounted to deficiency in service. The University wrote letter to the college to refund the fee but the College did not. Thereafter, a legal notice was served on OP No.1. Since the College did not impart any studies, it has no right to retain their fee deposited by the complainants. The complainants, therefore, prayed for refund of the fee deposited by them and also to compensation of Rs.50,000/- each student for harassment and mental agony suffered by them. They also prayed for Rs.5000/- per complainant as legal expenses.
3. Along with the complaint, the complainants attached the details showing that OP No.1 is liable to pay to them a sum of Rs.41,16,456/-.
4. The contention of OP No.1 is that the present complaint has been filed just to harass, humiliate and to injure its reputation though its result had been above 90% and the allegations levelled against it are false and baseless. It claimed to be running in accordance with the University instructions and there is no deficiency in service from any angle in its working. The reports of Dr.Rupinderjit Kaur and Dr.Jaya Lal were said to be motivated. The complainants were said to have studied and resided in the Institute upto August, 2008 when the entire session was almost over. The complainants were alleged to have come under the influence of some other Institution which were jealous of the performance of OP No.1. The dispute was alleged to have arisen due to the demand of the complainants to keep the mobile phones with them even in the class rooms to which OP No.1 did not agree. It was denied if the amount of Rs.40,250/- was paid by each student as the fee. Their contention is that the complainants might have paid the fee to OP No.2 University and only Rs.20,250/- per complainant was paid to OP No.1. It was admitted that the complainants charged Rs.12,000/- Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 6 as room rent for the entire year per student for single bed. It was denied if there was triple occupancy. It was admitted that Rs.23,000/- was charged as mess charges and according to the OPs, it was on non profit basis. OP No.1 also admitted the receipt of Rs.10,000/- as security per student and it was alleged that the same would be refunded on completion of the course. It was admitted that they charged Rs.2,000/- for each complainant to take them on tour. According to OP No.1, the tour was not compulsory for all but it was organised at the request of the students and was optional. As regards, the withdrawal of affiliation of OP No.1 by the University, it was said to be due to some misunderstanding which was removed thereafter and the affiliation was restored, subsequently. According to OP No.1, all the complainants could not have filed a single complaint as the cause of action was different for each of the complainants. It was alleged that the complainants cannot ask for refund of the fee paid to OP No.1 because they have failed to show if they paid any fee to any other institution. OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP No.2 University was represented by a Counsel who appeared on 24.09.2009 but thereafter none appeared for it and OP No.2 is, therefore, proceeded against exparte.
6. Parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contentions.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the OP is that 36 complainants have filed a joint complaint thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the District Forum which is not permitted under law. It is argued that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 7
9. In this respect, we may refer to the facts of the case that all the 36 complainants were admitted as the students in the Institute OP No.1. All the 36 complainants have common grouse that the said Institute lacked basic facilities, the faculty was not competent or sufficient to impart teaching; that the Institute was indulging in mal practices and had been over charging from them. In this manner, all the complainants have the same grievance against one and the same Institute. The "complainant" has been defined in Sub Section (1), Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act wherein under sub Clause
(iv), it is mentioned that the complainant means one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest. Since all the complainants have the same interest, they, therefore, can jointly file this complaint.
10. The learned counsel for the OP has then referred to Section 12(1)(c) of the Act which provides that a complaint in relation to any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with the District Forum by one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest "with permission of the District Forum on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers so interested". It is argued that under this provision, the permission of the District Forum or the State Commission was necessary before proceeding in the case and that in the present complaint, no such permission has been accorded and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. We do not find any merit in this argument. The provisions referred to by the learned Counsel relates to the case where one or more consumers file a complaint on behalf or for the benefit of all the consumers so interested. However, in the present case, the consumers themselves have filed the complaint on their own behalf and not on behalf of some other consumers who are not party to this complaint. The mere fact that more Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 8 than one consumers have joined in this complaint cannot be a justification to dismiss the same because all the consumers have the same interest and it would not be, in the interest of justice, to multiply litigation by forcing each of them to file a separate complaint.
11. Even if any permission of the State Commission was required to continue with the complaint on behalf of more than one consumer, the same has impliedly been granted as is clear from the fact that this Commission entertained the complaint, issued notice to the OPs directing them to file their reply, gave opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and took the proceedings to a logical conclusion. It is true that the permission has not been specifically ordered but the facts referred to above are clear to show that this Commission was inclined to hear the complaint and decide the same which amounts to implied permission. Even if specific permission is needed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, we hereby accord the permission and permit all the complainants to file and continue with this single complaint against the OPs.
12. It is then argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that the complainants were misled by some other Institute, due to which, they started creating troubles in the smooth working of the Institute. It is also argued that the dispute arose due to the fact that the complainants wanted to take mobile phones in the class rooms which were prohibited by the Management and, therefore, the complainants started a revolt to damage the reputation of the Institute. Their contention is that full facilities, as were needed, were provided to the complainants, the faculty was full and qualified and the teaching was being imparted in accordance with the instructions given by OP No.2 University. It is contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. This Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 9 argument is far from truth and devoid of merit. First, we deal with the faculty whether the faculty was sufficient and qualified or not?
13. Amanjot Kaur complainant submitted her affidavit Ex.C3 alleging that OP No.1 did not have satisfactory staff or teaching staff for teaching B.Sc. Nursing; that during the inspection by the University, they had shown fictitious staff and out of 12 teachers mentioned in the list, 10 were never seen in the College campus and only two teachers were previously available but they also left the College. Dr.(Mrs.) Rajinderjit Kaur Bajwa had been directed by OP No.2 University to inspect OP No.1. When she came on 8.7.2008, she was introduced to various teachers and the students. However, when on 18.7.2008, all the students along with their parents came present in the University and told her that on 8.7.2008, they were taken away by the College on the pretext of clinical training to Mansa where they were made to sit in one room and were brought back in the evening. On reaching the college, they came to know that the inspection by the University had been carried out. They told Dr.Bajwa that there was no teacher in the college. Dr.Bajwa, therefore, reported to the University that on the day of inspection i.e. on 8.7.2008, OP No.1 showed her fake teachers who were called only for that particular day. The students produced before her on that day were not the students of the Nursing College but probably of nursing school. She, therefore, reported that the College Management (OP No.1) has tried to befool her and requested for taking appropriate action against the College Management. Dr.Jiya Lal had also joined the inspection being carried on 24.7.2008. He also was of the view that the teaching faculty shown on 8.7.2008 was fake and the students produced were of some other class and the College Management had tried to befool the Inspector. Thereafter, the inspection was carried out on 18.9.2008 and a report was Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 10 submitted showing that out of 12 faculty members, 9 were missing from the fresh list submitted to the Inspector. There were clear discrepancies in the qualifications, the date of appointment and other particulars of the tutors who were alleged to have been employed for teaching the complainants. Many of the tutors were not eligible to teach because they were not registered with Punjab Nursing Registration Council which was mandatory. Some of the teachers were teaching at 2 different institutions. The inspection report recorded as follows : -
"From the foregoing details, it is abundantly clear that two very important components of nursing training i.e. the requisite faculty and the clinical training are extremely deficient and are shown in fraudulent way by the Institute by preparing and producing fake, false, fabricated and forged documents."
It was recommended that affiliation should not be granted to the College for the next year.
14. Ex.C4 is the order passed by the District Magistrate, mansa on 30.7.2008 which shows that the Director of OP No.1 college was misbehaving with the students i.e. the complainants, there was mis- management and therefore, the District Magistrate imposed Section 144 Cr.P.C. and ordered the closure of OP No.1 till further orders. The University OP No.2 wrote a letter Ex.C5 to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa to verify the report as the students were agitating against the management, against inadequate facilities, deficiency of teaching staffs and overcharging. It was reported that all the 40 agitating students came personally to the University along with their parents and filed protests and complaint against the College. This letter also depicts glaring deficiency in service being rendered by the OP.
Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 11
15. Thereafter, a Committee comprised of Dr.P.P.Khosla, Dr.Avnish Kumar and Mrs.Raj Rani was constituted to conduct the verification. Their report is Ex.C8 which shows that the main gate of OP No.1 institute was locked from inside and the Committee members were not permitted to enter the premises. The request made by them to call a teacher to open the gate were turned down. The Committee, however, collected the written statement of all the students present there and it was reported as follows : -
1. There was no regular Principal at S.S.CON Bhikhi.
2. No regular qualified teacher for example Anatomy being taught by a person having only GNM qualification.
3. Only one week of clinical training in the whole period of stay in the said institution.
4. Instead of qualified clinical instructor a hostel warden accompanied them for clinical training.
5. Hostel authorities did not allow 10 students in the batch because the college had not paid for them where as students version all the students had paid required fee to the college.
6. Same premises were being used for inspection of multiple courses (e.g. B.Ed. G.N.M., A.N.M., B.Sc. (N) & during inspections all the students were sent on leave.
7. Hostel & mess fee was charged at the rate of Rs.3000/-
month/student and for the same facility GNM students were being charged @ Rs.2000/- per month per student.
8. Forcibly taken a trip to Rajasthan which was not related with education.
Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 12
9. Misbehaviour with students & their parents.
On 29.9.2008, Baba Farid University OP No.2 passed an order, copy of which is Ex.C9, declining the affiliation to OP No.1 for the next year i.e. 2008-09. The drawbacks about the faculty, producing of fake documents and the College committing fraud on the authorities and also against the students were the reasons. It was also observed that the faculty was ineligible and fake. Sargam complainant produced her affidavit Ex.CW1/A mentioning all these drawbacks. On the other hand, is the affidavit of Som Nath Mehta, Director of OP No.1 who even inspite of overwhelming evidence about their misdeeds was presuming that everything was fine in the College and it was only a conspiracy to injure their reputation.
16. When the affiliation for the next year was declined, OP No.1 filed a CWP No.14937 of 2008. The abovementioned reports were produced before the Hon'ble High Court by the OP State of Punjab. It was observed that the College was granted provisional affiliation only for one year but it produced faculty which lacked credibility and genuineness. The Principal was purported to have been appointed on two different dates vide two separate interviews giving different percentage of marks in B.Sc. Nursing and M.Sc. Nursing by her. She was not present on the day of the inspection and two medical certificates of the same date issued by two different hospitals, one from Civil Hospital, Mansa and the other from State of Karnataka without any identification mark were produced. It was held that the genuineness of the medical certificate as well as engagement of Dr.T.G.Luxmi as a Principal with educational qualifications are all shrouded with suspicion.
Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 13
17. Dr.Naved Kureshi was another teacher who was also found to have been recoded as such at two places at the same time. It was held that the said letters were referred to show overlapping period of experience certificate produced by Shri Naved Kureshi from two different institutions, thus, throwing serious doubt about the genuineness and credibility of the experience certificate of Dr.Kureshi.
18. The above evidence and the documents show that not only OP No.1 was deficient in faculty, they were showing fake teachers to the University at the time of inspection and even those fake teachers were not eligible to be appointed as Lecturers or to teach the complainants. It was, therefore, a case where after obtaining the fees, no service was rendered by OP No.1 to impart teaching to the complainants.
19. Now, we refer to the other deficiencies. OP No.1 was also required to take the students for mandatory clinical training for a proportionate period out of the prescribed duration of 450 hours in the first year. The successive reports from the University as mentioned above have reported about this deficiency on the part of the OPs. The complainants in their complaint Ex.C2 made to OP No.2 mentioned this fact in para 3 thereof that they were not being taken for training to any hospital and when they demanded it, the Director misbehaved with them on 14.7.2003. This fact was also taken into consideration while passing the order dated 29.9.2008 Ex.C9 passed by OP No.2, vide which, the affiliation for the year 2008-09 was declined. This also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.
20. According to the complainants, the OP No.1 had charged from each of them a sum of Rs.40,250/- as tuition fee. In this respect, receipts Ex.C50 to Ex.C147 have been produced. OP No.1 in their written reply have Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 14 simply denied this contention. This denial, however, is falsified in view of their own letter Ex.C1, vide which, the fee structure was intimated to Sargam complainant. It is mentioned therein that the college fee is Rs.42,250/-, hostel fee is Rs.35,000/- and the college security deposits is Rs.10,000/-. The receipts Ex.C50 to Ex.C145 issued to various students, however, prove the payment of Rs.40,250/- by each of them. The calculation sheet attached by the complainants with their complaint shows that out of the above amount of Rs.40,250/-, the complainants have prayed for the refund of Rs.20,250/-. At the stage of arguments, it was not disputed that the amount of Rs.40,250/- has been received as fee by OP No.1. Since OP No.1 has not imparted any training/education to the complainants, they are not entitled to retain the said amount of Rs.20,250/-. The mere fact that the complainants continued in the college till August, 2008 when they were shifted to some other institution would not be helpful to OP No.1 because from the very beginning, OP No.1 was not having sufficient and qualified faculty members, they were not rendering the requisite services and the students/complainants had from the very beginning been complaining to the authorities about it. Even the mandatory clinical training has not, at all, been imparted to the complainants.
21. OP No.1 has admitted that each of the complainants have deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- as security. Ex.C1 also corroborates this fact that OP No.1 charged this amount. There are receipts submitted by the complainants having paid the said amount and the receipt thereof is not denied by OP No.1. However, their contention is that this amount shall be refunded only after the complainants have completed the entire four year course undertaken by them. It may be mentioned that the complainants have already left OP No.1 college due to deficiency in service on their part. OP Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 15 No.1, therefore, cannot keep the security deposit with them and are liable to refund the same.
22. It was also contended by the complainants that they were taken on a forcible tour for which Rs.2000/- was charged from each student. OP No.1 admitted having taken the complainants on tour but their contention is that it was optional and not compulsory and secondly, that it was organized on the asking of the students themselves. There is no such document to suggest if the students ever asked for the said tour. The tour notice Ex.OP1/6 produced by them appears to be an afterthought because there is no mention in the written reply if any such notice was displayed by the OPs. The tour was not a part of curriculum. Instead of teaching the students/complainants by providing adequate and competent staff, OP No.1 was wasting their time and money on such activities which were not of any help to their study. OP No.1 would, therefore, refund the amount of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants.
23. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the complainants that a sum of Rs.35,000/- was charged from complainants No.1 to 34 for the hostel in advance for the full year. The OPs filed an affidavit of its Director Som Nath who admitted the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs.35,000/-. According to him, Rs.12,000/- was the room rent and Rs.23,000/- were the mess charges. The students have joined the college in December-January, 2008. They had been agitating ever since they realised that there was not sufficient faculty competent to teach them. The students had been withdrawn from this College in the month of August, 2008. In this manner, OP No.1 is entitled to the room rent and mess charges only for 8 months and they are liable to refund the charges for the remaining 4 months which amounts to Rs.8000/- per complainant.
Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 16
24. The learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that if there was single occupancy, then, Rs.1000/- per month was the room rent However, in respect of the complainants, there was triple occupancy and, therefore, OP No.1 was entitled only to Rs.333/- per occupant but it has charged Rs.1000/- per occupant. His contention is that the OPs are liable to refund Rs.667/- for 8 months period during which the complainants occupied the hostel. In this respect, the complainants, however, have not produced any evidence as to which the room was occupied by which of the students. Only the documentary evidence showing the allotment of rooms in the hostel could prove this fact which is missing in this case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no such refund on proportionate basis can be allowed.
25. The learned counsel for the complainants has then argued that OP No.1 got admission of the complainants by undertaking to render proper service to the students but it failed to impart the same. On the other hand, due to the lack of teachers and those deputed to teach, being insufficient, incompetent and ineligible, the students were put on the path of struggle, due to which, they wasted one year of their study and remained under mental tension which caused them physical harassment. The agony which the complainants had undergone can well be imagined. The complainants who were aspiring to complete their studies peacefully could clearly see bleak future simply due to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Due to this mental agony and physical harassment which put the complainants on the way of struggle and had, ultimately, to leave the Institute, we are of the opinion that each of the complainants should be paid a compensation of Rs.50,000/- by OP No.1.
Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2009 17
26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed and the same is, accordingly, allowed with costs. The following directions are given : -
1. OP No.1 Shiv Shakti Institute of Nursing shall refund the amount of Rs.20,250/- plus Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.2000/- = Rs.32,250/- to each of the complainants along with interest @ 9% per annum since the date of deposit till the same is actually paid to the complainants.
2. OP No.1 shall refund the amount of Rs.8000/- to each of the complainants No.1 to 34 towards room rent and mess charges along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1.9.2008 till the said amount is actually paid to the complainants.
3. OP No.1 shall pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to each of the complainants.
4. OP No.1 shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
The above said amount shall be paid by OP No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, it would be liable to pay the total amount along with penal interest @ 12% per annum with effect from today till the total amount is paid to the complainants.
29. Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER July 12, 2012.
Paritosh Refer to Reporter