State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Padmawati Balaji Institute. vs Sh. Manish Mehta. & Ors. on 3 January, 2020
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 89/2017
Date of Presentation: 19.01.2017
Order Reserved on : 16.07.2019
Date of Order : 03.01.2020
......
Padmawati Balaji Institute Sanjay Sadan Chotta Shimla H.P.
through its Director Shri Jai Kumar Sood.
...... Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Manish Mehta son of Shri Ramesh Chand Mehta resident of
Village Gahan Post Office Khunni Nankhari Rampur
Shimla.H.P.
......Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. The Directorate of Distance Education Annamalai University
Annamalai Nagar Tamil Nadu-608002.
3. The Controller of Examination Annamalai University
Annamalai Nagar Tamil Nadu-608 002.
......Respondents No.2 & 3/Opposite parties No.2 & 3
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Peeyush Verma Advocate.
For RespondentNo.1 : Mr. Anil Tomar Advocate.
For Respondents No.2&3 : Mr. Shashi Bhushan vice Ms. Priyanka
Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 26.09.2016 passed by Learned District Consumer 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Padmawati Balaji Institute Versus Manish Mehta & Ors. F.A. No.89/2017 Forum/Commission in consumer complaint No.147/2012 titled Munish Mehta Versus Jai Sood Director & Ors. Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Manish Mehta Complainant filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 is running institute in the name and style of Padmawati Balaji Institute for conducing regular MBA and BBA courses. It is pleaded that complainant was admitted for BBA course of three years for session 2007-2010 and complainant deposited fee for the said course vide annexures C1 to C4 placed on record. It is pleaded that complainant successfully completed BBA course in the month of October 2010 and was declared passed. It is further pleaded that certificate was not issued to complainant by opposite parties till filing of consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complainant provisionally got admission in LLR Educational Trust for MBA course and deposited a sum of Rs.32950/-(Thirty two thousand nine hundred fifty). It is pleaded that complainant was admitted in MBA course subject to the condition that complainant would supply BBA mark sheet within three months from the date of provisional admission. It is further pleaded that opposite parties did not supply mark sheet to complainant and complainant could not furnish mark sheet to LLR Educational Trust within 2 Padmawati Balaji Institute Versus Manish Mehta & Ors. F.A. No.89/2017
stipulated period and consequently complainant was not allowed to continue with the course of MBA and complainant could not complete his academic session. It is pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service and also indulged in unfair trade practice.
3. Complainant sought relief of Rs.50000/-(Fifty thousand) on account of loss caused to complainant due to non delivery of BBA final year mark sheet for Academic year 2007-2010. In addition complainant sought relief for payment of Rs.32950/-(Thirty two thousand nine hundred fifty) deposited by complainant for MBA course with LLR Educational Trust which was lapsed due to act of opposite parties. In addition complainant sought relief to the tune of Rs.25000/-(Twenty five thousand) on account of expenditure incurred during stay of complainant at Solan for his MBA course in LLR Educational Trust. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs.500000/-(Five lac) on account of academic loss, financial loss and mental agony. In addition complainant sought costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that present consumer complaint is not maintainable against opposite parties. It is pleaded that 3 Padmawati Balaji Institute Versus Manish Mehta & Ors. F.A. No.89/2017 opposite party No.1 had no roll for issuance of certificate. It is pleaded that certificate is issued by opposite parties No.2 & 3 through IITM Delhi. It is further pleaded that out of deposited amount 60% of amount used to go to IITM Delhi. It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.1. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
5. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3 pleaded therein that complainant was not student of Annamalai University at all. It is further pleaded that complainant did not pay any consideration amount to opposite parties No.2 & 3 directly. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite parties No.2 & 3 sought.
6. On dated 26.08.2013 learned DCF/DCC dismissed consumer complaint for default. Thereafter complainant filed F.A. No.335/2013 before State Commission which was disposed of on 21.04.2014. State Commission on dated 21.04.2014 restored the consumer complaint to its original number and directed parties to appear before learned DCF/DCC Shimla on 14.05.2014. Thereafter learned DCF/DCC disposed of consumer complaint afresh on dated 26.09.2016. Learned DCF/DCC ordered opposite party No.1 to pay consolidate damages to the tune of Rs.200000/-(Two 4 Padmawati Balaji Institute Versus Manish Mehta & Ors. F.A. No.89/2017 lac) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till date of actual payment to complainant on account of financial loss, loss of his educational career, mental pain and harassment. In addition learned DCF/DCC ordered opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand) as litigation costs to complainant. In addition learned DCF/DCC ordered opposite party No.1 to comply order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
7. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned DCF/DCC opposite party No.1 filed present appeal before State Commission. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to exonerate private coaching centre from liability who has directly received consideration amount from complainant in individual capacity?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
9. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant on dated 11.09.2015 has given written statement 5 Padmawati Balaji Institute Versus Manish Mehta & Ors. F.A. No.89/2017
that complaint alongwith affidavits and documents annexures C1 to C6 already filed be read in evidence and close the evidence. Thereafter learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 has given statement on dated 03.06.2016 that version alongwith affidavit and documents Annexures R1 to R4 already filed by opposite party No.1 be read in evidence and closed the evidence. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not adduce any evidence qua controversial facts despite several opportunities granted by learned DCF/DCC. Matter was listed for evidence of opposite parties by learned DCF/DCC on dated 30.10.2015, 22.12.2015, 02.03.2016, 25.04.2016 & 03.06.2016 but opposite parties did not adduce any evidence by way of affidavits qua controversial facts. It is well settled law that pleadings are not substitute for evidence qua controversial facts. See Latest HLJ 2017 H.P High Court 1011 titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Champa Devi & others.
10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that appellant was merely functioning as study centre of IITM and was not responsible for issuance of certificate and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that appellant has directly received consideration amount from complainant for three years BBA course for session 2007- 6 Padmawati Balaji Institute Versus Manish Mehta & Ors. F.A. No.89/2017 2010 independently. State Commission is of the opinion that coaching centre after receiving fee for course directly from complainant in individual capacity could not escape from liability.
11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that IIMT was necessary party and present consumer complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that consideration amount was not received by IIMT from complainant directly. On the contrary consideration amount of three years course of BBA was directly received by appellant from complainant in individual capacity. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to exonerate appellant from liability because appellant has directly received consideration amount of course from complainant in individual capacity as per fee receipts issued by opposite party No.1 in favour of complainant placed on record. Even in the relief clause complainant did not seek any relief against IITM. Complainant has only sought relief against appellant who has directly received consideration amount of course from complainant.
7
Padmawati Balaji Institute Versus Manish Mehta & Ors. F.A. No.89/2017
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned DCF/DCC has illegally granted damage to complainant to the tune of Rs.200000/- (Two lac) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from date of complaint till actual payment on account of financial loss, loss of educational career, mental pain and harassment and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant got admission in MBA course in LLR Educational Trust on 09.08.2011. It is proved on record that complainant could not continue his MBA course in the absence of BBA course certificate. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is student and complainant has suffered loss of career due to non supply of qualifying certificate of BBA course. State Commission is of the opinion that learned DCF/DCC has granted reasonable damage to complainant and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in damage order passed by learned DCF/DCC keeping in view fact that complainant is student and keeping in view the fact that student is wealth of nation.
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned DCF/DCC has granted excessive litigation costs to complainant to the tune of 8 Padmawati Balaji Institute Versus Manish Mehta & Ors. F.A. No.89/2017 Rs.5000/-(Five thousand) and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has engaged Advocate and has also paid litigation costs & other expenses and learned DCF/DCC has granted reasonable litigation costs to complainant.
14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that matter relating to educational institutions does not fall within Consumer Authorities in view of ruling announced by Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in 2010(11) SCC 159 titled Maharishi Dayanand University Versus Surjeet Kaur is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that order announced by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Maharishi Dayanand University Versus Surjeet Kaur is relating to service provided by Statutory Authorities only. State Commission is of the opinion that appellant is not Statutory Authority created by statute but is only a private individual coaching centre. State Commission is of the opinion that private coaching centre after receipt of consideration amount directly relating to coaching falls within the domain of Consumer Authorities. See 2019(II) CPJ 140 SCDRC Chandigarh titled Fiit Jee Ltd. Vesus Vikram Seth & Ors. See 2009(I) CPJ 3 NC titled Nipun Nagar Versus Symbiosis Institute of International Business. 9
Padmawati Balaji Institute Versus Manish Mehta & Ors. F.A. No.89/2017 See 2009(III) CPJ 33 NC titled Sehgal School of Competition Versus Dalbir Singh. See 2003(6) Supreme Court Cases 697 titled Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. Versus State of Karnataka & Ors. See 2010(IV) CPJ 396 NC titled Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ashwani Verma. See 2012(I) CPJ 194 NC titled Fiit Jee Ltd. Versus Dr. Minathi Rath.
15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned DCF/DCC is in accordance with laws and in accordance with proved facts and does not warrant any interference by State Commission is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in order of learned DCF/DCC and it is held that order of learned DCF/DCC is strictly in accordance with laws and in accordance with proved facts because appellant is only private individual coaching centre and is not Statutory Authority under any Act. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
16. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is affirmed. Consideration amount directly received by appellant vide Annexure-C1 dated 10.06.2008, Annexures-C2 & C3 dated 10 Padmawati Balaji Institute Versus Manish Mehta & Ors. F.A. No.89/2017 02.02.2009, Annexure-C4 dated 05.06.2009, Annexure-C5 dated 08.03.2010 and Admission fee receipt Annexure-C6 dated 09.08.2011 issued by L.L.R. Education Trust (Regd.) Solan (H.P) shall form part and parcel of order. Order passed in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice keeping in view the fact that complainant is student and keeping in view the fact that student is wealth of nation.
17. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Consumer Forum/ Commission alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Sunita Sharma Member 03.01.2020 K.D 11