Back
2011(3) CPR 242
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Justice Sham Sunder, President and Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member
ICFAI National College, through its authorized signatory, Shri Rajinder Mathur, Assistant Manager, IFEN —Appellant
versus
Amrita Sodhi & Anr. Respondents.
Appeal Case No. 330 of 2010 with Appeal case No.332 of 2010
Decided on 29.8.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant Appeal Case No. 330 of 2010:Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1:Sh. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate
For the Appellant in Appeal case No.332 of 2010:Sh.Mohit Jaggi,Advocate for the appellant and For Respondents No.1:Sh.Pankaj Gupta , Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Educational institutions cannot be allowed to exploit innocent students.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(r) (1)(i), 15 and 17—Education—Misrepresentation and unfair trade practice—Name of institute changed from INC to INC Adam Smith—College was not affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, but was affiliated with ICFAI University, Tripura, which was not disclosed at the time of admission—District Forum directed OPs to refund amount of Rs. 65,875/- deposited by complainant and pay to Rs.50,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and misrepresentation alongwith costs of Rs. 5,000—If complainant got enrolled herself as a private candidate, for MBA degree certificate Course, then question of 75% attendance, for making her eligible to appear in examination, did not at all arise—Reference to UGC Rule, which was not applicable to appellant/OP, was misconceived—False representation was made that it was a regular MBA Course for which 75% attendance was required—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 10 to 15)
(ii) Torts—Compensation—Consumer Fora are not meant to enrich complainants, at the cost of service providers—Compensation required to be awarded by Consumer Fora should be reasonable, just and fair, and commensurate with facts and circumstances prevailing, on record—It should neither be excessive, nor too meager—Compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted by District Forum, could not be said to be meager—Same is just, fair and reasonable— Similarly, costs awarded also cannot be said to be meager—No ground for enhancement of compensation, costs and rate of interest made out. (Para 16)
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(r)(1)(i)—Misrepresentation and unfair trade practice in education—When a student, who is not so mature in worldly life, seeks admission, in a particular course, he/she is to sign form of institute—If complainant was made to sign printed declarations, which was contrary to documents, then same were result of misrepresentation and fraud—These declarations could not be said to have been signed by complainant of her own volition, but on account of false representations made to her and fraud played on her. (Para 17)
Sham Sunder , President—This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, arising out of the order dated 10.8.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs as under ;
“ The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.65,875/- deposited by the complainant. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and misrepresentation to the complainant, as held above and wasting her precious one year of career. The entire amount alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 29.01.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.”
2. The complainant undertook the CAT test for admission to Master’s Business Administration(MBA). She received interview letters, from various institutes, including OP-2 (now appellant in appeal No.330 of 2010). Allured by the false promises made by OP Nos.2 to 5 ( in the original complaint), she chose to get admission, in their College, and deposited admission fee of Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, she deposited another amount of Rs.50,875/- towards fee. She attended the classes in Sector 25, Chandigarh, for about 3 months. On 18/19.10.2008, all of a sudden, she was shocked to know that the name of the institute was changed from INC to INC Adam Smith. She also came to know, at that time, that the College was not affiliated with ICFAI University, Dehradun, but was affiliated with ICFAI University, Tripura, which was not disclosed to her, at the time of admission. It was further stated that the affiliation was subsequently changed to Sikkim Manipal University, and, thereafter, to Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, within a year. It was further stated that on 30.10.2008, a parent teacher meeting was called, at the campus, at Chandigarh, and all the points were discussed, in detail. The OPs could not clarify, even a single point, raised by the students. It was further stated that right from the very beginning, the OPs indulged into grave unfair trade practice, deficiency, in rendering service, committed fraud and cheating with the students, by giving misleading information, about their status, and by not providing required infrastructure, as was promised. In this view of the matter, the complainant requested for the refund of fee, deposited alongwith compensation, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by her.
3. After hearing the complainant, at the time of preliminary hearing, the complaint against the ICFAI University, Dehradun, Village Bhawala, near Sailakhui Industrial Area, Poanta Sahib Road, District Dehradun, Shri Sukhwinder Singh Mann, Assistant Manager (Development), ICFAI National College (INC) (Now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh, and Anjali Mahajan, Counselling Officer, ICFAI National College (INC) (Now Adam Smith Institute of Management), Plot No.11-12, Dainik Bhaskar Building, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh, OPs 1, 4 and 5 (in the original complaint) respectively was dismissed vide, order dated 08.02.2010, by the District Forum, without issuing notice to them, as the complainant was not able to establish, whether any service, was rendered by them, qua her.
4. OP Nos.2 & 3, in their written reply, stated that the complainant, at the time of admission, was provided the prospectus and application form disclosing information regarding the University, INC, MBA Programme, Education Methodology, Case Study, Res
