Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum and the State Commission.

 

The pivotal issue across these 36 Revision Petitions revolves around determining whether educational institutions or services provided by them fall under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act?

 

Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that OP-1 operates a study centre offering a Post Graduate Diploma in Financial Planning (PGDFP) through distance mode, authorized by OP-2 under the authorization code IASE-U/D/127. Relying on advertisements by OP-1 in newspapers and on its official website, the Complainant had sought admission and clarification regarding UGC recognition of the course. Based on information provided by OP-1, the Complainant enrolled in the PGDFP course for the academic year 2008-09, paying a total fee of Rs. 1,80,000. At the time of admission, OP-1 asserted that the course was UGC-recognized, based on documents from IASE University. OP-1 guaranteed 100% placement on course completion, as outlined in their placement policy. Additionally, OP-1 claimed the classrooms were Wi-Fi enabled and that students would participate in live market visits and projects. He was also informed that multiple certificates would be issued without further fees. The official website listed various students who had benefited from these promises. The website also depicted amenities such as a café and multiple clubs, which were never provided. Having completed a graduation course from Calcutta University, the Complainant enrolled in PGDFP program conducted by OP-1, expecting a mark sheet issued by OP-2. However, the mark sheets for Semesters 1 and 2 were issued by OP-1 and were strangely handwritten. Despite completing the course, no diploma certificate was provided. Repeated reminders and campus visits were of no consequence. The Complainant also did not receive the promised placement.

 

Being aggrieved by the Order of the District Commission, OP-1 i.e. International College of Financial Planning filed Appeal No. 56 of 2014 and the learned State Commission vide Order dated 12.12.2017, modified the District Forum order as follows:-

"So far as the reliefs given in favour of complainant/ respondent no. 1 is concerned, as quoted earlier Ld. Trial Forum passed an order directing the appellant to pay such a huge amount which cannot be termed as compensation, since the same being a bonanza. However taking into consideration the facts of the case, the nature of allegations, the reliefs sought for etc. we are of the opinion that refund of 50% of the course fee, compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand) would suffice the ends of justice. The Appeal is thus disposed of and the reliefs are given to the complainant/respondent no. 1 in a modified form. Parties do bear their respective costs of appeal. The order of dismissal passed by Ld. Trial Forum against respondent no. 2/OP no. 2 i.e. IASE University stands affirmed."
 

Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 12.12.2017 both the Complainants and OP-1 have filed separate Revision Petitions. The Complainant has filed Revision Petition No. 1684/2018 against both OP-1 (International College of Financial Planning) and OP-2 (IASE University). And OP-1 filed Revision Petition No. 1839/2018 against the Complainant and OP-2.

 

In RP No.1684 of 2018, the Complainant/Petitioner taken the ground that he is entitled to all the reliefs sought by him and granted by the District Forum.