Delhi District Court
Syed Qasim Ali vs The Indian Institute Of Planning & ... on 17 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF DR. HARDEEP KAUR,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Suit No.:CS DJ 384/2017
CNR No.DLST-01-002947-2017
IN THE MATTER OF :
Syed Qasim Ali
S/o Mr. Nazim Ali
R/o House No.G-27/A, 2nd Floor,
Khasra No.259, Abul Fazal Enclave-I,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025.
.............Plaintiff
Versus
1. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
Through its chairman,
Having its registered office at:
B-11, Level-5, Qutub Institutional Area,
New Delhi.
2. The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
(University established by an act of
Tamilnadu State)
Through its Registrar-IIIAbhishekapatti,
Tirunivelli
Tamilnadu-012
.........Defendants
Suit instituted on : 20.04.2017
Judgment pronounced on : 17.02.2023
SUIT FOR DAMAGES
JUDGMENT
CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 1 of 17
1. The brief facts as stated in the plaint are that plaintiff was willing to pursue M.B.A after completion of his graduation degree from a reputed institute so that he could get a good placement and a bright career. The defendant no.1 has offered 2 years "Full Time MBA Degree" recognized by defendant no.2 University. The plaintiff joined the defendant no.1 for the abovesaid 2 years full time MBA course offered by the defendant no.2 University through defendant no.1 for Spring Summer Session 2010-2012. At the time of admission, the plaintiff had paid Rs.1,23,250/- (Rs.92,500/- as 1st installment plus retention amount of Rs.30,750/-) to the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff had paid remaining three installments of Rs.92,500/- each within 11 months from the date of admission. Thus, the plaintiff had paid the entire amount of fees i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- approximately prior to the due dates as the defendant no.1 started demanding the same.
2. The plaintiff duly attended the classes and appeared in the 1st Semester Examination held on January 2011, the result of which was declared in April 2011. The plaintiff successfully completed the 1st Semester and appeared in 2nd Semester examination in May 2011. However, the result of 2 nd Semester was declared very late in December 2011. Since the result of 2 nd Semester was declared late therefore, the defendants conducted the examination of 3rd and 4th Semester collectively in May-June 2012. Plaintiff has also appeared in the above examination pertaining to the 3rd and 4th semesters.
CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 2 of 173. The defendants did not hold the examination on time but also charges additional Rs.4500/- per semester as examination fee which was not disclosed to the plaintiff at the time of admission and he was told that above mentioned fees are inclusive of everything. After appearing in examinations, the plaintiff started waiting for results as well as the MBA degree, so that he could get a good job. After waiting a considerable period, when the result was not declared by the defendant no.2, in August 2012 the plaintiff contacted the defendant no.1 and he was told to wait for some more time and assured that his result shall be declared soon and subsequent thereto he would be awarded MBA degree by the defendant no.2.
4. The plaintiff along with other students kept waiting for their result but to utter dismay of plaintiff nothing fruitful could come out. Being found no other option available to them the plaintiff along with other students lodged a complaint before the police against the defendant no.1. After coming to know about the complaint, the Dean of the defendant no.1 called the plaintiff and other students thereby requesting them to wait till 31 st January 2013. The Dean of the defendant no.1 also stated that since the defendant no.2 University is situated in Tamil Nadu and in South India the Pongal, which falls on 16th January 2013 used to be celebrated on a large scale and people over there would be busy in preparation of the said festival and therefore, there is every likelihood that the result may be declared after that. Presuming his assurance to be true the plaintiff and other students acceded his request. When the above period was also passed and CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 3 of 17 result was not declared, the plaintiff alongwith other students again tried to contact the Dean but he refused to meet them but they could succeed to meet Associate Dean Mr. Sray Agarwal, who assured them that their marksheets would be available by May 27, 2013. The plaintiff insisted the defendants to issue assurance in writing and accordingly, the defendant no.1 issued a certificate to that effect. The plaintiff had no option but to wait but no result was declared by the defendants. Plaintiff again visited the defendant no.1 Institute and joined the protest by other students whose result was also not declared.
5. On July 1, 2013 the defendant no.2 has declared/published the result pertaining to the four subjects but neither the result of remaining subjects were declared nor the marksheets including the above four subject were issued by the defendant no.2. Plaintiff kept waiting with the hope that the results with regard to the remaining subjects would be declared shortly and marks- sheets would be delivered to them but all their hopes turned futile. On 10.11.2013, plaintiff along with other students again lodged a complaint to the police presuming that the police will take action against the defendants for the wrongful act on their part but the plaintiff and other students were told that this is not the proper forum for redressal of their grievances.
6. In January, 2014, the defendant no.1 called the plaintiff and asked to sign over a vakalatnama stating that the defendant no.1 is going to file a case against the defendant no.2 for withholding the results but the plaintiff refused to do so as he was CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 4 of 17 not aware about the contents of litigation by defendant no.1. Thereafter, plaintiff received an email issued by the Dean on behalf of defendant no.1 thereby demanding the plaintiff to deposit a DD amounting to Rs.17,500/- in the name of defendant no.2 or a DD of Rs.19,000/- in the name of defendant no.1 and it was stated in the aforesaid email that result of the plaintiff will be declared only after that. When the plaintiff protested the same on the pretext that the demand of extra money is illegal and the plaintiff has already paid more amount as settled, the defendant no.1 threatened to withhold the result till their illegal demand is fulfilled.
7. Due to the aforesaid act and foul play of the defendants, the career of the plaintiff has been spoiled and the plaintiff was continuously harassed by the defendants by way of not issuing the marksheets and making illegal demands. The plaintiff was frustrated on account of not getting job on the pretext of not having his testimonials as well as MBA degree. For almost four years the plaintiff was running from pillar to post but no heed was paid to him by either of the defendants which resulted great financial hardship and mental agony and harassment. Since the plaintiff has paid the entire fees and written his examinations, it was incumbent on part of the defendant no.1 to coordinate with defendant no.2 for facilitating the results of the plaintiff and it was incumbent on part of defendant no.2 to issue the marksheet and award degree timely without any delay.
8. On 08.05.2014, the plaintiff alongwith two other students CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 5 of 17 approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide writ petition(C) No. 3069/2014 thereby requesting for directions against the defendants herein for issuance of mark-sheets and award of MBA degree. Vide order dated 10.02.2015, the Hon'ble High Court directed the defendants to issue the mark-sheets and to award the MBA degree to the plaintiff and two other petitioners in the abovesaid writ petition. Despite directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the defendant no.2 did not award the degree. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred a contempt petition bearing no. Cont.Cas(C)No.473/2015 against the Registrar of defendant no.2. On 29.05.2015, the Hon'ble High Court issued notices against the Registrar of defendant no.2. After lingering on the contempt petition for a considerable period and after the specific directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the MBA Degree certificate was handed over to the plaintiff through the advocate of the defendant no.2. Due to the unprofessional attitude and illegal acts of the defendants, the plaintiff has not only suffered financially as he could not get a good placement in the absence of marksheets and MBA degree but also suffered mental agony and thereafter in on account of unemployment to which the plaintiff is entitled to get the damages from the defendants. The defendants not only illegally withhold the results and degree of the plaintiff and made the plaintiff unemployed even after passing the examination and investing hard earned money of his father but also imposed the burden to the litigation upon his shoulder. The defendants spoiled the career of the plaintiff. The plaintiff assessed the compensation of Rs.7.5 lacs on account of abovesaid losses and CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 6 of 17 therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.7.5 lacs as compensation on account of damages caused to the plaintiff by the illegal action on part of defendants. Had the plaintiff been awarded degree on time (i.e. in August 2012) he would have got a good placement of at least Rs. 25,000/- per month and hence would earned approx. 12 lacs during 2012 to 2016 however, the plaintiff bonafidely assessed half of that amount i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation/damages on account of loss of his income/unemployment due to the withheld of the result as well as not awarding the MBA degree. Apart from that the plaintiff assesses Rs.1 lac on account of mental agony, harassment and suffering due to reason mentioned above. The plaintiff also assesses Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
9. Despite service of summons, none has appeared on behalf of defendant no.1, so defendant no.1 was proceeded ex parte and right of the defendant no.1 to file the written statement was also closed vide order dated 11.09.2018 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
10. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.2 wherein the defendant no.2 disputed and denied the contents of plaint. It is stated in the Written Statement that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The defendant no.2 is an University formed by the State Government of Tamil Nadu by enacting Act 31/1990. Defendant no.1 is one of the on site study centers of CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 7 of 17 defendant no.2 and there is a Memorandum of Understanding between defendant no.2 and defendant no.1 as per which the defendant no.1 is wholly responsible for the studies and grievances of their students. The plaintiff joined MBA course offered by defendant no.2 through defendant no.1 for the Session 2010-2012. Every on site centre was charging different fees from the students based on their infrastructure and the facilities engaged. In fact, the defendant no.2 has been charging Rs.17,160/- only from the study centers for a MBA student for one year, which is very well available in the WEB Site.
11. The defendant No.1 had to pay the share of the defendant no.2 as per Memorandum of Understanding, which is Rs.17,160/- per student. The defendant no.1 failed to pay the share of the students which came to Rs.4,41,71,179/-. Hence, results were not published. The efforts made by the defendant no.2 to collect the dues form defendant no.1 were in vain. The defendant no.1 informed falsely that he had made payment of six crores to defendant no.2. In fact, the defendant no.1 had not made the payment. Just to defraud the defendant no.2, the defendant no.1 had informed false details of payment. There was a balance of Rs.17,160/- to the defendant no.2 with regard to the study of the plaintiff. Plaintiff admitted the same in para 16 of the plaint. Considering the plight of the on site students the syndicate of the university resolved on 30.12.2013 to collect the course fee inclusive of TDS component from individual students of IIPM Centres directly. It was informed to the on site centres. Accordingly, more than 400 students paid the money and CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 8 of 17 received certificates. As the plaintiff had not paid the money, the defendant no.2 was not in a position to declare the results. Defendant no.2 is not responsible for the financial loss and mental agony of the plaintiff. In fact, the defendant no.1 has to pay Rs.4,41,71,179/- towards the share to defendant no.2 and the said amount is still pending. Because of the non payment, the defendant no.2 was not able to issue certificates. There is no cause of action for the suit and this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It is therefore, prayed that suit be dismissed with cost.
12. In the Replication, the plaintiff has denied the contents of the Written Statement. Plaintiff has reiterated & reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
13. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 27.04.2019 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. ISSUES
1. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit qua the defendant no.2? OPD-2
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant No.2 as the default was made by defendant no.1 and the defendant No.1 failed to pay to the defendant No.2 sum of Rs.4,41,71,179/- towards the share to the defendant No.2 which is still pending and, therefore, results were not published by defendant No.2? OPD-2
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages of Rs.7,50,000/- or any other amount towards CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 9 of 17 damages against the defendants?OPP
4. Relief.
14. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. PW-1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/X and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint in his affidavit. He has relied upon following documents:
Exhibit/Mark Nature of document Ex. P1 Marksheet issued by defendant no.2 Ex. P2 Result Ex. P3 (colly) Orders in Contempt Petitions Ex. P4 Consolidated Marksheet Ex. P5 (OSR) Copy of M.B.A Degree Ex. P6 (OSR) Copy of Fee Structure Ex. P7 Receipt of Fee Ex. P8 (OSR) Copy of Complaint dated 20.12.2012 Ex. P9 Certificates Ex. P10 Original Police Complaint dated 10.11.2013 Mark A Copy of Certificate dated 25.02.2013 (as mentioned in Affidavit Mark P 11)
15. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and PE was closed vide order dated 30.11.2019.
16. In its defence, the defendant no.2 examined only one witness.
17. D2W-1, Sh. M.Chidambram, Deputy Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli-12 has CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 10 of 17 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.D2W1/1. D2W1 has relied upon the following documents:
1) Copy of Authorization letter issued by the Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University is marked as Mark A.
2) Copy of the Memorandum of Understanding filed alongwith written statement, which is Ex.D2W1/1 in evidentiary affidavit is de-exhibited and marked as Mark B.
3) Copy of Fees structure of MBA for onsite students through study centers filed alongwith written statement, which is Ex.D2W1/2 in evidentiary affidavit is de-exhibited and marked as Mark C.
4) Copy of letter dated 15.05.2013 filed alongwith written statement, which is Ex.D2W1/3 in my evidentiary affidavit is de-exhibited and marked as Mark D. He has also relied upon copy of Resolution dated 30.12.2013 of the Syndicate of defendant no.2, which is marked as Mark E.
18. This court has heard the arguments advanced by both the counsels and carefully perused the record. Issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE No.1:
Onus to prove this issue was on the defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 has taken preliminary objection in its written CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 11 of 17 statement that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try, adjudicate and entertain the present suit. Record shows that plaintiff has filed suit for damages against defendant no.1 & 2. As per memo of parties registered office of defendant no.1 is at B-11, Level-5, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi.
It is relevant to reproduce here Section 19 CPC which is as under:
19.Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.-
Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.
As per Section 19 CPC plaintiff can file suit where the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and defendant resides, or carries on business or personally work for gain. In the present case, registered office of defendant no.1 is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as well as wrong was done within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.2.
ISSUE No.2:
Onus to prove this issue was on the defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 examined Sh. M. Chindambram, Deputy CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 12 of 17 Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Triunelveli-12 as D2W1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.D2W1. He deposed that defendant no.2 is an University formed by the State Government of Tamil Nadu by enacting Act 31/1990. Defendant no.1 is one of the on site study centers of defendant no.2 and there is Memorandum of Understanding between defendant no.2 and defendant no.1 as per which the defendant no.1 is wholly responsible for the studies and grievances of their students. The plaintiff joined MBA course offered by defendant no.2 through defendant no.1 for the academic session 2010-2012. Every on site center was charging different fees from the students based on their infrastructure and the facilities engaged. In fact, the defendant no.2 has been charging Rs.17,160/- only from the study centers for a MBA student for one year, which is very well available on the website.
During cross-examination D2W1 admitted that publishing of result is the responsibility of the defendant no.2 and he further admitted that defendant no.2 had issued the degree to the plaintiff after filing of contempt petition by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Record shows that defendant no.2 has relied upon the Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.04.2009 executed amongst defendant no.2, YGen Management Consulting Services and IIPM/ defendant no.1 marked as Mark B. In terms of this MoU, defendant no.1 was obliged to remit the fees to defendant no.2 through YGen. Further, it is mentioned in Clause 8 that University shall be responsible for evaluation, publication of CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 13 of 17 results and award of degree certificates and marks card to the successful students. It is further mentioned in Clause 18 of this MoU that if there are dispute about the evaluation or award of degrees, the same shall be the responsibility of the University. Therefore, defendant no.2 could not withhold the mark sheets and degree of the plaintiff on account of any inter se dispute between defendant no.1 & defendant no.2 arising out of their inter se agreement with regard to sharing of fee or payment of fee. Further, record shows that plaintiff has filed present suit for damages against the defendants on the ground that defendants have not declared the result of plaintiff for his MBA degree in August, 2012. Because of the unprofessional attitude and illegal acts of defendants, plaintiff has not only suffered financially but also could not get a good placement in the absence of mark sheets and MBA degree and suffered mental agony on account of unemployment. Aforesaid discussion shows that it is the responsibility of the defendant no.2 to issue MBA degree to the plaintiff on time, defendant no.2 failed to discharge his responsibility and cause of action arose against both the defendants. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant no.2 and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE No.3:
Onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and deposed in consonance with the plaint. Record shows that plaintiff was the student of defendant no.1 institute in MBA course offered by defendant no.2 CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 14 of 17 University through defendant no.1 and plaintiff has paid the necessary fees including registration fees, tuition fees, admission fees and examination fees (Ex.P7). The grievance of plaintiff is that defendants have not released his mark sheet and degree on completion of MBA course in August, 2012. Due to the unprofessional attitude and illegal acts of the defendants, the plaintiff has not only suffered financially as he could not get a good placement in the absence of mark-sheets and MBA degree but also suffered mental agony and thereafter in on account of unemployment to which the plaintiff is entitled to get the damages from the defendants. Plaintiff during his cross- examination deposed that he did not get any job offer after passing out of the college for one and a half year and he got a job in the end of 2013 with TIA Consulting, located at Gurugram, Haryana and worked with them till 2016 and he used to get Rs.10,000/- per month when he joined TIA Consulting and his salary was around Rs.20,000/- when he left this company. He produced his statement of bank account w.e.f. 30.11.2013 to 02.02.2015 Ex.P12. This document shows that plaintiff got salary ranging from Rs.10,000/- to Rs. Rs.16,500/- from 10.12.2013 to 12.01.2015. He deposed that presently he is working with Jones Lang Lassale, Building Operations Private Ltd. at Cyber City, Gurugram, Haryana as finance executive and he joined this company in the year 2016 and currently earning Rs.38,000/-.
Plaintiff in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A deposed that if he had been awarded degree on time (i.e. in August 2012) he would have got a good placement of at least Rs.25,000/- per CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 15 of 17 month and hence would earned approx. 12 lacs during 2012 to 2016 however, the plaintiff bonafidely assessed half of that amount i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation/ damages on account of loss of his income/ unemployment due to the withheld of the result as well as not awarding the MBA degree.
It is relevant to reproduce here Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act which is as under:
Section 101 Indian Evidence Act is as under:
101. Burden of proof-Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Plaintiff has not examined any other witness except himself to prove the fact that if he got the MBA degree on time he would get the job of Rs.25,000/- per month on the basis of MBA degree. He has not examined any witness who was earning Rs.25,000/- per month on the basis of MBA degree got from the same institution i.e. IIPM in the year 2012. This is only the self serving testimony of plaintiff.
Further, record shows that defendant no.2 released the mark-sheets and MBA degree to the plaintiff in the year 2015 after filing of Contempt Petition by the plaintiff before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. This shows that plaintiff has received his MBA degree and marks sheets after a period of 3 years approximately and plaintiff suffered mental agony and litigation expenses due to unprofessional attitude of defendants. Hence, CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 16 of 17 this issue is partly decided in favour of plaintiff.
RELIEF In view of the aforesaid discussions and in view of the fact that issue no.3 is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation/ damages for mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses against defendants.
Cost of the suit is awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Typed to the dictation directly, Digitally signed
corrected and pronounced in the DR by DR
HARDEEP
KAUR
open Court on 17.02.2023. HARDEEP Date:
KAUR 2023.02.20
16:20:04
+0530
(Dr. Hardeep Kaur)
Additional District Judge-04,
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS DJ 384/17 Syed Qasim Ali Vs. The Indian Institute of Planning & Management & Anr. Page 17 of 17