State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
University Of Delhi vs . Sahil Sansi on 19 September, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 19-09-2007 Appeal No.A-2007/598 (Arising from the order dated 12-06-2007 passed by District Forum-X, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotel, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.1134/2005(568/2003) University of Delhi, Appellant Through its Vice Chancellor, Through Delhi. Mr. J.S. Rajpal, Advocate. Versus 1. Sahil Sansi, Respondent No.1 Sector-C, Pocket-I, 1128, Vasant Kunj, Ne2 Delhi-110070. 2. Acharya Narender dev College, Respondent No.2 Through Principal, (University of Delhi), Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) On the allegation of misrepresentation on the part of the appellant, particularly in the bulletin of information in respect of a course of Bachelor of Information Technology (in short BIT) that the said course was recognized by UGC and AICTE, the appellant has been, vide impugned order dated 12th June, 2007 passed by the District Forum, directed to refund the fees of Rs. 17,325/- towards admission fee and also pay Rs. 15,000/- for the mental agony and harassment, cost of litigation and for illegally retaining the said amount since 2001.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The impugned order was passed on the allegations of the respondent that he took admission in Acharya Narender Dev College in Bachelor of Information Technology course offered by University of Delhi ; that at the time of admission he deposited Rs. 17,325/- towards fee.
Since in the brochure it was not mentioned that the aforesaid course was not recognized, he vide letter dated 22-08-2001 requested the appellant to refund the fee. Appellant neither replied the aforesaid letter nor refunded the fee and on the other hand indulged in unfair trade practice by starting the course without obtaining the approval of UGC and AICTE and hence it was guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and liable to refund the fee along with interest @ 18%.
4. As against this the version of the appellant is that in the year 1997 it started three years Bachelor course of Computer Application and Bachelor of Computer Science in order to develop human resources in the field of computer application which was duly approved by the UGC. However, in order to meet the growing demand of skilled professionals in the field of information technology, three years degree course was converted into four years course and was renamed as BIS/BIT after an extensive discussion and after placing the matter before Academic Council of University. On 13-01-2001 it had also written a letter to UGC for recognition of the aforesaid course for the students who were already pursuing the said course with the University. Subsequently the required approval was also granted by the UGC. Appellant therefore denied that by offering the course without obtaining the approval of UGC and AICTE it had indulged into unfair trade practice.
5. There is no dispute that at the time of taking admission the appellant was not in possession of the approval given by the UGC about the course. As regards role of AICTE the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that AICTE is only to advise UGC for declaring any institution imparting technical education as a deemed university and nothing more. Learned counsel further contended that the AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of its departments or units. Thus in short the role of AICTE vis--vis the University is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action.
6. There is no dispute as to the aforesaid role of AICTE. The problem before us is of entirely different nature. The question is whether the appellant had represented at the time of admission in the year 2001 that the course of BIT offered by it has approval of UGC and AICTE. What is relevant is whether the appellant misrepresented in the bulletin of information that the appellant has obtained approval for the above course. Answer is no, as it had only written a letter on 13-01-2001 to the UGC for recognition of the aforesaid course for the students who were already pursuing the said course with the University and it was at a later stage that UGC approved the course whereas the course commenced on 17-07-2000. This is unfair practice and misrepresentation. Act of applying to the UGC for approval does not tantamount to the fact that course is an approved course. Until and unless appellant was in possession of approval letter of UGC that the course has been approved it could have either orally or in writing represented to the candidates that the course has approval of UGC.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
8. Impugned order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
9. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. Announced on the 19th September, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj