State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Iias Bhilai vs Amit Kumar Jangde on 3 February, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.373/2010
Instituted on 09.06.10
IIAS Bhilai (Bhilai Campus)
[Erstwhile Office at Aadhar Shila Building,
Sada Complex, Moti Lal Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, Durg (C.G.)]
Communication Address: IIAS, ICMARD Bldg., 5 th Floor,
Block 14/2, C.I.T. Scheme VIII(M), Ultadanga,
Kolkata - 700 067, West Bengal,
Represented through:-
Mr. Abhijit Dey, Chairman / Director ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Amit Kumar Jangde, S/o Shri Mohan Lal Jangde,
34/1189, Janta Colony, Dr. Rajendra Nagar,
Nr. Shubham Kirana Stores, Post Ravigram, P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur,
Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.)
2. Institute of Advance Studies in Education (Deemed University),
Though its Director, Gandhi Vidya Mandir,
Sardar Sheher, Dist. Churu,
RAJSTHAN ... Respondents.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri B. Gopa Kumar, for appellant.
Shri Avinash Chandra Tiwari, for respondent no.1.
Shri Sourabh Sharma, for respondent no.2.
ORDER
Dated: 03/02/2011 PER: - HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as 'District. Forum' for short) in complaint case No.119/2009, whereby the complaint was allowed.
// 2 //
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are that OP-2 is the Deemed to be University and provides distant education through its learning centre at Bhilai i.e. the OP-1. Attracted by the advertisement of the Ops assuring to provide 100% placement after completion of course from their institute, the complainant had taken admission in 3 years degree course of Hotel Management. The Ops had also assured to assist in obtaining educational loan. After completion of course the complainant reminded OP-2 to provide placement but the said OP avoided the request time and again. The complainant made efforts for seeking a job on the basis of his course undergone under the Ops but he did not succeed because the reputation of the institute was not good. The complainant tried to gather information regarding the Ops under Right To Information Act and came to know that the OP-2 is a deemed to be University and as such it is not authorized to run distant learning centers away from its headquarter at Sardar Shahar, Distt. Churu. OP-2 had illegally started running the learning center at Bhilai through OP-1. Hence even in the Mark Sheet provided to the complainant, the name of the center has not been mentioned. The complainant had to spend a sum of Rs.2,31,000/- and the Ops had arranged for finance through State Bank of India, Kuchahri Branch, Raipur. As the complainant has not got any job as assured by the Ops, he has not been able to repay the loan. Hence due to illusive advertisement of the Ops the complainant has // 3 // suffered great financial loss as well as loss of three invaluable academic years of his life. After serving legal notice complaint was filed before District Forum claiming reimbursement of the amount spent in undergoing the course together with damages for mental harassment and costs.
3. The opposite party No.1 had averred in their reply that the complainant had taken admission in dual course which included both the degree and diploma courses. Both courses are separate and required to be cleared by the complainant separately. It was further averred that the complainant had paid only a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- towards fee and rest of the amount of Rs.77,000/- were not paid to OP- 1 but were spent by the complainant towards lodging and food. The complainant had cleared the examination of B.Sc.(Hotel Management & Tourism) but he failed to complete semester third to sixth of the other course i.e. Diploma in Hospitality Management. He was not regular in diploma course. He was taken for outdoor catering to hotel Celebration, Raipur where he behaved in an irresponsible manner in state of intoxication. His father was also informed about this incident. Though the complainant had completed only one of the courses the OP-1 got him appointed at Hotel Park Plaza, Jodhpur, (Raj.) but he left the job without intimation only after 4 days. Neither the advertisement of the OP was illusive nor the OP-1 spoiled the career of the // 4 // complainant, but on the contrary OP-1 had got him employed. If he has left the job the OP cannot be blamed. OP-1 has not committed any deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The complaint be dismissed.
4. OP No.2 remained ex-parte before the District Forum. No written version or affidavit was filed on their behalf.
5. The learned District Forum found the Ops liable for deficiency in service and directed the Ops to pay the awarded amount jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party No.1 has filed the present appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order on the ground that the matter is so intricate and complicated that detailed investigation is needed to assess the veracity and validity of distance learning center. Rights of deemed university are also to be assessed. All this is not possible in summary proceeding before Consumer Fora, hence the impugned order is bad for having been passed without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the fact that a committee has been constituted under provisions of C.G. Niji Vyavsaik Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Act, 2008 for looking into all matters // 5 // pertaining to fee and admission of students, hence jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is ousted. The complaint ought to have been dismissed. Learned counsel for appellant further submitted that the Fora below has failed to take into consideration various important facts such as the complainant failed to complete the dual course, also that yet the OP-1 extended placement but the complainant failed to grab the opportunity due to his own misadventures or through his negligence to report. Learned counsel submitted that OP-1 did not assure job immediately after completion of course but the complainant could have got the job had he confirmed to expected, disciplined behavior. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has not committed any deficiency in service as valid Mark Sheets and Degree has been issued by the deemed university as per course offered by the present appellant. Learned counsel submitted that the circular dated 3.9.2007 of Distance Education Council and Gazzette Notification dated 25th June,2002 confirms the right of the appellant to offer the courses opted by the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that as the course opted by the complainant is not a technical one, the approval AICTE is not necessary, university itself is competent to give permission. Appellants counsel also submitted that in answer to a question in Rajya Sabha it has been specifically replied that respondent no.2 is a legally approved university to carry out course through // 6 // distant education. Learned counsel prayed that the appeal be allowed setting aside the impugned order.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant / respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and contended that the order of the District Forum is just and proper and no interference therein is called for. He submitted that under Right to Information Act, the complainant has elicited material information relating to the Ops and on the basis of those documents that have been placed on record, it is abundantly clear that being a deemed university OP-2 was not authorized to run any distant learning center. For the illegal act of the Ops in running the center at Bhilai and due to publication of alluring misleading advertisement published by them, the complainant has suffered huge financial loss as well as mental harassment besides loss of three valuable years of his life. Learned counsel for complainant / respondent No.1 submitted that the complainant had paid huge sum as fee for carrying out the course, so he is consumer. Neither the Ops provided any job as assured under the advertisement, nor due to reputation of the Ops the complainant was able to get any job on his own despite best efforts. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that the plea regarding offer of placement is totally false and baseless. It appears from the document filed by the appellant in this appeal that the complainant had joined at Jodhpur on 24.4.08. Learned counsel // 7 // submitted that the plea is proved to be false by the very fact that by that time course of the complainant was not yet complete. He submitted that regarding the allegation of misbehavior at hotel Celebration, Raipur the complainant has filed affidavit of two persons who were present there with him and they have stated on oath that the allegation against the complainant is false. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that as there is deficiency in service on part of the Ops the District Forum has rightly awarded compensation, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the said respondent is a deemed university and as stated by learned counsel for appellant, being such university it is competent to open distant learning centers. He supported the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant.
9. After hearing learned counsel for all the parties at length and perusing the record we are of the considered opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly decided question of jurisdiction. Though learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the matter involves complicated questions to be considered and also that a committee has been constituted under C.G. Niji Vyavsaik Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Act, 2008 to // 8 // consider the matters relating fee and admission of students. Hoever we are not convinced by the aforesaid arguments. Neither the question of deficiency in service which we have to consider can be said to be complicated even in the facts of the case nor the Committee constituted under the aforesaid Act is meant for dealing with matters of deficiency in service. Otherwise also the remedy provided by the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law. So, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the Consumer Fora does not enjoy jurisdiction in the matter.
10. On perusal of record it is found that the complainant has obtained information under Right to Information Act from various authorities including University Grants Commission (UGC), Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNU), Distance Education Council (DEC), All India Council for Technical Education and, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Deptt. of Higher Education. Relevant applications and the reply received from the authorities have been placed on record of District Forum by the complainant ranging from annexure No.23 to 34. It emerges from the information provided by the aforesaid authorities that OP-2 has been given recognition as a deemed university; a Deemed University is not authorized to run Distant Study Centers; the OP-2 has been accorded only post facto approval by the DEC till 2005;
// 9 // OP-2 has been accorded provisional recognition for the academic year 2007-2008 and no further approval has been accorded to it by DEC. It is further mentioned clearly that in case of technical / professional programmes such as B.SC. Hotel Management approval from apex bodies such as AICTE is necessary and also that the said body has not given its approval. It is mentioned in Annexure No.27 that AICTE has not given any approval to IASE Sardarshar to conduct technical programme on distance education mode. Further UGC vide Annexure 29 and 32 denied having permitted OP-2 to run distant study centers and has stated that it is recognized as deemed university and as such it is required to restrict its activities to Sardarshahar only.
11. On the basis of aforesaid material it may appear that the center at Bhilai is unauthorized. However, there are some more very important documents that go to the root of the matter and clarify the position. Minutes of third Meeting of the Joint Committee of UGC, AICTE and DEC held on 7th August 2007 have been placed on record of District Forum from pages 120-121. It clearly appears from the aforesaid document that IASE Deemed University was one of the institutions that had applied for ex-post facto approval and the Joint Committee accepted the recommendations of the committee appointed by DEC for examining the institutions that had applied for ex-post facto approval to DEC. It accepted the recommendations of granting // 10 // ex-post facto approval to all the four institutions, that had applied, upto 2007. Provisional recognition was granted for the current academic year i.e. 2007-08 and for coming years fresh applications by the institutes were required to be made.
12. As resolved in aforesaid Joint Meeting, decision regarding Provisional Recognition was intimated to the institute vide letter dated 03.09.2007. It is also mentioned in the letter- 'We would also like to inform you that the DEC has decided not to insist on territorial jurisdiction to be followed by institutions in offering programmes through distance mode and on that matter universities should be governed by their own Acts and statutes.'
13. Another document, which we would like to refer, is Recognition Policy of the DEC which is at page 106 of the record of District Forum. It is mentioned therein that post facto recognition is accorded to the institutions that were offering programmes in distance mode prior to the establishment of DEC and before the introduction of the Recognition Scheme by DEC in 2003. Post Facto recognition is accorded to such institutions who apply to DEC seeking Post Facto recognition. It is further mentioned in the document - 'post facto recognition is accorded in view of the demand from their students and also from their employers in the light of the Gazette Notification No.44 // 11 // of the Govt. of India dated 01.03.1995. The Post Facto recognition is accorded to such institutions only from 01.03.1995 or from the date of commencement of Distance Education programmes whichever is later'. In the recognition policy it is mentioned that the DEC has decided not to insist on territorial jurisdiction to be followed by the institution in offering programmes through distance and online modes and on the matter, universities should be governed by their own Acts and Statutes. The DEC does not consider giving approvals to Study Centers of any distance education institution as opening of study centers and Regional Centers is an internal policy matter of the institution / university concerned, as per the provision in their own Act/Statutes.
14. In view of the observations made hereinabove it appears that the information given under Right to Information Act to the effect that Joint Committee of UGC, AICTE and DEC has not accorded approval to IASE Deemed University for offering programmes through distance mode, appears to have been given due to oversight.
15. It is now established that Post Facto recognition was granted to IASE Deemed University at Joint Meeting of UGC, AICTE and DEC on 7th August 2007. Provisional recognition for the academic session of 2007-08 was also granted. It is noted that the complainant had undergone the course between 2005 to 2008 and for that period // 12 // recognition, as mentioned earlier, was duly granted by the authorities concerned. Hence, it cannot be said that the study center at Bhilai was unauthorized.
16. Coming to the advertisement, it is noted that in the advertisement OP-1 claimed to be 'The No.1 Hotel School of Chhattisgarh'; 'IIAS was adjudged as one of the ten Best Institutes for Hospitality & Tourism Management in India', the words '100% placements' are also mentioned in the advertisement. The complainant had taken the plea that the Ops had advertised 100% placement but failed to place him. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted during course of arguments that the advertisements were not misleading. Though the complainant did not complete dual course yet he was offered job opportunities twice. Once at Hotel Celebration, Raipur where he behaved in an irresponsible manner after consuming liquor. Second time OP-1 got him employed at Jodhpur but he left the job. Both the submissions have not been substantiated by the appellant.
17. The complainant, besides filing his own affidavit, has filed affidavit of Gaurav Meshram and Imran Alam Khan. Both of them were also students at the appellant institute and have stated on oath that despite assurance in that regard they have not been provided with // 13 // employment by the Ops. They have further stated on oath that OP-1 has made allegations against the complainant of misbehaving after consuming liquor at hotel Celebration, Raipur between 28.4.2006 to 30.4.2006 but the said allegation is totally false and baseless. Neither the complainant nor any other student did so. The deponents have stated that they were also present at Hotel Celebration during the aforesaid period. Affidavit of Abhijeet Dey, Director of OP-1 institute has been filed in support of written version but affidavit of any independent person stating that the complainant had taken liquor and misbehaved while at Hotel Celebration has not been filed. The OP No.1 had averred in written version that the incident of consumption of liquor was reported to the father of the complainant but copy of such intimation or report has not been filed before District Forum. Further it does not appear that the complainant was employed there but was taken there for the purpose of practical training of outdoor catering.
18. So far as other job opportunity at Jodhpur is concerned, we do not find any material to show that the complainant was appointed at Hotel Park Plaza, Jodhpur. At the appellate stage the appellant has filed copy of e-mail communication between Rohit Sarin, Sr. Manager Administration and Communication, IIAS Goa and Meenu from HR Deptt. Park Plaza, Jodhpur. Rohit Sarin had enquired regarding details // 14 // of appointment of the complainant who had joined at Park Plaza around September or October, 2008 and had left the job in 4-5 days. In response Meenu has stated-'We have got his resume from our record in which his date of joining has been mentioned & signed on it. In future any help, we will give co-operate it.' A copy of the said resume as referred in e-mail has also been filed. On top side the words 'To be taken as DOJ' are mentioned and someone has signed under it. Near it 'DOJ' (probably abbreviation used for date of joining) is mentioned as '24.4.08'. Signatures of the complainant are only at the bottom where normally the resume is signed while sending the same for placement and the date mentioned under the signature of the complainant is 23.4.2008. Learned counsel for complainant / respondent No.1 submitted that on the date mentioned in the document as date of joining, the course was not yet complete. Examinations were held in the month of July, 2008 so the plea taken by the appellant regarding joining at Jodhpur is false. The argument of learned counsel for complainant is well supported by Admit Card of the complainant. In the circumstances no one can be expected to have joined. In case it was so the OP-1 ought to have taken such plea from the very beginning. It is a matter of common knowledge that a candidate sends resume to various institutions but he is not appointed at each and every place and appointment at a particular place cannot be proved by making endorsement 'DOJ' on the resume itself. There are various other // 15 // documents to prove appointment and joining. Hence the plea of the present appellant regarding placement of the complainant cannot be accepted. However, prior to starting arguments learned counsel for appellant did propose to provide the complainant employment in 3 Star Hotel but he refused on the ground that appellants institute at Bhilai has been already closed down and presently the center is being run at Kolkata. In the circumstances and in view of the conduct of the party he cannot rely on the appellant.
19. We find that the advertisement published by the present appellant was deceptive and the complainant reasonably believed that he will be provided suitable placement by the OPs. We find that though the course provided by the OPs is recognized yet there was some deficiency on part of OP no.1 in not providing placement facility. Though appellants' counsel made an offer of placement but the complainant / respondent no.1 had his own reasons to refuse it, we feel that some compensation should be awarded.
20. As we have not found any deficiency in service on part of OP no.2 there can be no order against the said OP. So, the order of the District Forum is hereby set aside.
// 16 //
21. The appeal is partly allowed. As we have found that the study center was duly authorized the fee paid by the complainant cannot be refunded. However, for not providing placement to the complainant, the present appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand, only) towards compensation to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of this order failing which interest @ 6% p.a. will also be payable from the date of default till final payment. Cost of Rs.2000/- will also be payable besides the aforesaid amount.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/02/2011 /02/2011 /02/2011