State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Parampreet Singh vs Sh. H. S. Pasricha, on 12 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH Appeal No.170 of 2009 Sh. Parampreet Singh son of Sh. Charanpal Singh R/o H.No.77, Phase XI, Mohali. .Appellant. VERSUS Sh. H. S. Pasricha, Owner/Director of ICAI Infotech, House No.2265, Sector 61, Phase VII, Mohali. IInd Address: - ICAI Infotech, SCO No.22, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh. ..Respondent. BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
PRESENT: Sh. Vinay Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. R. K. Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.
Appeal No.220 of 2009 Sh.
H. S. Pasricha, Owner/Director of ICAI Infotech, House No.2265, Sector 61, Phase VII, Mohali.
IInd Address: -
ICAI Infotech, SCO No.22, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.
.Appellant.
VERSUS Sh.
Parampreet Singh son of Sh. Charanpal Singh R/o H.No.77, Phase XI, Mohali.
.Respondent.
PRESENT: Sh. R. K. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Vinay Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent.
MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.
1. Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of two appeals bearing No.170 of 2009 filed by the complainant Sh. Parampreet Singh and No.220 of 2009 filed by OP Sh. H. S. Pasricha against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh dated 25.2.2009 passed in complaint case No.1109 of 2008: Sh.
Parampreet Singh Vs. H. S. Pasricha.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant was that after completing his Diploma in Tool and Die, he contacted the OP for Graduation and Masters Course of Business Administration. It was averred by the complainant he was offered 3 year MBA integrated course on 2.5.2005, which also consisted of BBA course for 2 years followed by MBA for one year. The complainant agreed to the same and paid admission as well as registration fee. The complainant, it was averred, passed the BBA examination and thereafter, he got admission in MBA course on 12.1.07 after paying the requisite fee to the OP vide receipts (Annexures P-15 to P-17). The allegation of the complainant was that in the month of July 2007, he was shocked to see that the he was not enrolled by the OP anywhere in any of the Universities and on enquiring the matter, no response was forthcoming from the OP. Further allegation of the complainant was that even the mark sheets of various examinations passed by him had been withheld by the OP. Aggrieved by the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant served a legal notice dated 31.7.2008 on the OP but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid acts of OP as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, the complainant had filed the complaint before the learned District Forum.
3. OP in its written version, first took preliminary objections regarding the complaint being not maintainable; the complainant being not a consumer and the complaint being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was pleaded by the OP that the eligibility for admission in MBA course was to be confirmed by the IASE University and they had nothing to state in that regard. OP further asserted that it was the prerogative of the University to conduct examinations, declare result, supply the mark sheets and degree to the students passing/completing the course. It was next pleaded that the admission to the MBA course was subject to passing of BBA course and subject to supply of mark sheets and degree by the IASE University as the MBA course was under the Sikkim Manipal University. As per OP, it was the complainants duty to get the mark sheets and degree from the said University but after the receipt of notice from the complainant, as a goodwill gesture, they requested the University to supply the mark sheets and degree of BBA course of the complainant vide letter dated 6.8.2008. Pleading no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The learned District Forum first while dealing with the preliminary objection regarding the complainant being not a consumer qua OP recorded in the impugned order that as the complainant had paid the amount of fees to the OP, as such, he had direct contact with the OP. It further recorded that since the examination form was also sent by the OP, therefore, the complainant was definitely a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As regards the next preliminary objection regarding the University not being arrayed as a necessary party, the learned District Forum again did not find any merit in this preliminary objection and observed that as the examination fee was sent by the OP to the University, the OP had the direct contact with the University and it was for them to get the Mark Sheets from the University. The learned District Forum also recorded that after the institution of the complaint, OP wrote letter to the University to send the Mark Sheet, which could be done by the OPs but they slept over the matter and failed to secure the interest of the complainant.
5. The learned District Forum, while discussing with the case on merits, recorded that OP had not procured the Mark Sheet and Decree of BBA Course for the complainant and thus, was deficient in rendering proper service to him. Next dealing with the contention of OP that the admission to the complainant could not be granted by Sikkim Manipal University for want of Marks Sheet, which was to be issued by the University, the learned District Forum recorded that if this was the situation, then OP should not have collected the amount from the complainant enabling him to take admission in some other university. The learned District Forum further recorded that OP should have immediately persuaded the University to send the Mark Sheet of BBA Course so that the complainant was not harassed and his two years were not wasted. As per the learned District Forum, collecting fees for MBA Course knowing fully well that the complainant would not get admission in the MBA Course in the absence of Mark Sheet amounted to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of OP. In view of its above discussion, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to procure Marks Sheets from the University for BBA examination and deliver the same to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OP was made liable to refund the complainant the entire amount of Rs.25,400/- received from him for the BBA Course. OP was further directed to refund an amount of Rs.13,700/- received as fees from the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from the date of payment till its actual refund to the complainant. The learned District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for wasting of two years of his career plus unfair trade practice adopted by OP besides Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which OPs was made liable to pay the above amounts along with penal interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.9.2008 till actual payment.
6. Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, both the complainant and OP have filed separate appeals as mentioned above. The appeals having been taken on board, notices were sent to the respective respondents and record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum. Sh. Vinay Bhandari, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant whereas Sh. R. K. Bansal, Advocate represented the OP. Whereas in his appeal, the complainant has prayed for enhancement of compensation, in the appeal filed by OP Sh. H. S. Pasricha, the prayer is for setting aside the impugned order being illegal.
7. Sh. R. K. Bansal, Advocate, learned counsel for the OP reiterated that the Consumer Fora did not have the legal jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Honble Apex Court has clearly settled the law that the Universities and Educational Boards do not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the cases concerning the conduct of examination and issuance of marks sheet etc. cannot be agitated before the Consumer Fora. He, therefore, emphatically prayed that the impugned order be set aside solely on this ground. He further submitted that it was the IAES University, which was to issue the BBA Certificate and the marks sheet and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. He drew the attention of the Bench to Annexure R-3 vide which the OP had requested IAES University to issue the necessary certificate and marks sheet. He emphatically submitted to the Bench that there being no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the case being beyond the purview of the C. P. Act, the impugned order does not stand legal scrutiny and the same be set aside.
8. In response, however, Sh. Vinay Bhandari, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the order was well reasoned and detailed and it clearly established deficiency in service on the part of OP. The learned counsel, however, emphatically submitted that the entire career of the complainant had been ruined and he had lost not only two but four precious years of his life because passing the BBA was of no use to him unless he could do MBA and further, the non supply of certificate and marks sheet of BBA had put the complainant on a great disadvantage. He, therefore, prayed that the compensation be enhanced and the complainant be granted compensation as prayed for in the complaint.
9. We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. At the outset, it is to be stated that the order of Honble Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the OP is relevant only in cases of complaints against Universities and since, this complaint is qua OP, which is a college, the ratio of the authority does not apply. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had got admission in the OP Institution in BBA and had admittedly passed the BBA examination and the OP had received the amount from the complainant for doing an integrated MBA Course and the OP had received an amount of Rs.25,400/- on this count and it is also admitted that the complainant had also been issued Provisional Roll Numbers by the Institute of Advance Studies in Education, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Sehar, Rajasthan after taking of examination and passing the same. It is also on record that the complainant paid the OP a sum of Rs.13,700/- from 12.1.07 to 22.2.07 for admission to MBA Course but in July 2007, OP did not get the complainant enrolled anywhere in any University.
From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is absolutely clear that the complainant was a student of OP Institution who had admitted the complainant for an Integrated Course for doing BBA and MBA and it also charged the complainant for the same. Thus, as per the settled law, the complainant is clearly a consumer qua the OP and it was for the OP to ensure that the complainant did his MBA if he continued to pass all examinations and tests etc. as laid down. Admittedly, the complainant passed his BBA Exam but the certificate and marks sheet for the same had not been issued to him. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that duty was cast upon the OP to ensure that the complainant gets his BBA Degree as well as the Marks Sheet and if the same were not provided by the University, then it was for the OP Institute to interact with the concerned University and get the documents in question for the complainant. Not getting the same done is clearly a deficiency in service on the part of OP.
11. Now coming to the issue of enhancement of compensation, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation granted vide the impugned order is adequate and the complainant has not been able to make out any case for enhancement by leading any cogent evidence/ argument.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in both the appeals bearing No.170 and 220 both of 2009 and the same are dismissed. The impugned order being just, fair and legal is upheld.
13. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced.
12th November 2009.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)] MEMBER Sd/-
[MRS. NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION FA NO.170 OF 2009 PRESENT: Sh. Vinay Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. R. K. Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.
Dated the 12th day of October, 2009.
ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal along with cross appeal No.220 of 2009 has been dismissed.
(MAJ GEN S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)) MEMBER [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT (NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH Appeal No.220 of 2009 Sh.
H. S. Pasricha, Owner/Director of ICAI Infotech, House No.2265, Sector 61, Phase VII, Mohali.
IInd Address: -
ICAI Infotech, SCO No.22, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.
.Appellant.
VERSUS Sh.
Parampreet Singh son of Sh. Charanpal Singh R/o H.No.77, Phase XI, Mohali.
.Respondent.
BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.
MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
PRESENT: Sh. R. K. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Vinay Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent.
MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.
1. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.170 of 2009 titled Sh. Parampreet Singh Vs. Sh. H. S. Pasricha, vide which this appeal has been dismissed.
2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced.
12th November 2009.
[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT [MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)] MEMBER [MRS. NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad/-