Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J. M. Malik, Presiding Member
Sh. Dhirendra Kumar (Dead) & Ors. —Complainants
versus
Mr. M.R. Sarangapani, & Ors. —Opp. Parties
Original Petition No. 255 of 2001
Decided on 14.1.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Arun Sukhija, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Q.H. Khan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Fictitious educational institutions must be dealt with iron hands.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Education—Medical education—Deceptive advertisement—Consumers can join together and file a single case aggregating their amounts—At that time, only National Commission had jurisdiction because when case was filed pecuniary jurisdiction was lying only with National Commission—OPs have numerous shortcomings—Advertisement goes to show that they were offering Undergraduate courses in specialized subjects—It also mentioned that OP 5 was recognized by foreign university—Website papers further submitted that such version—It clearly goes to show that gullible persons/students were led up garden path—Letter also claims falsely that after completion of four years at OP NO.5, Degree shall be issued by Bridgeport University—Original certificates of complainants were withheld by OP5 for no reason—College was running for last 10 years/25 years—It should have got laboratory and made other facilities as well—One full year of students was wasted and their certificates were withheld with an ulterior motive—OPs should have produced list of books, list of librarians, list of Lab Assistants and Lab Technicians which was not done—They also did not furnish list of foreign faculty as advertised, time and again—Case against OPs stand fully proved—OP 5 directed to pay a sum of Rs. 41,95,566/- in favour of complainants along with 18% interest. (Paras 28, 33, 35, 37 to 41)
Result: Complaint allowed.
J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—Money is a bottomless sea, in which honour, conscience and truth may be drowned. However, law is the backbone which keeps man erect.
2. Sh. Saurabh Kumar, complainant No.2, Sh. Shreejit Sasi Kumar, complainant No.4, Sh. A. Sreedharan, Complainant No.6, Sh. V. Yoginder, complainant No.8 and Sh. Joseph Pius Chakola, complainant No.10 are the students, who have filed their cases along with complainant Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, who are their fathers, respectively, against the OPs. Complainant No.1 has since passed away and his LR, complainant No.2, is already on the record.
3. The above said five student-complainants were lured by an advertisement inserted by “Merit International Institute of Technology”, OP5, which offered undergraduate Degree Courses, specialized in the subjects like Robotic Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Biotechnology, Bio-informatics, Information Technology, Computer Science, Biomedical Engineering, Genetic Engineering, Electrical, Electronic Engineering, etc. Copy of the said advertisement has been placed on record as Annexure – A. The said advertisement mentions that OP5 was recognized by foreign Universities.
4. The student-complainants visited the website of OP5. Copy of the website pages have been placed on record as Annexure– B. Few claims made on the website are reproduced here as under :
“a) That OP No.5 was not only recognized in India but was “globally recognized.
b) That OP No.5 had a ’well-qualified and trained faculty’. c) That OP No.5 had ‘visiting faculty from India and abroad’.
d) That OP No.5 had a ‘well equipped library’.
e) That OP No.5 pursued ‘high academic standards’ and had adopted ‘state-of-the-art teaching methodology’ with learning tools and equipment.
f) That OP No.5 was offering a Bachelor Degree in Engineering in highly specialized subjects like Robotic Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Biotechnology, Bio-informatics, Information Technology, Computer Science, Biomedical Engineering, Genetic Engineering, Electrical, Electronic Engineering, etc.
g) That the students had option of doing their post-graduate studies abroad. This suggests that the Bachelor of Engineering degree of OP No.5 was recognized abroad.
h) Under the title ‘Affiliation, Articulation, Co-operation and memberships’, the names of a string of foreign universities were mentioned to suggest that OP No.5 was recognized by all these universities and these universities would accept students from OP No.5 for post-graduate studies.
i) It is further claimed that OP No.5 has a placement cell and the graduates from OP No.5 ‘are placed in key positions in the Industry and are spread over in India, USA, Canada, Australia, Europe, Middle East and Far East’.
j) That website further listed the detailed curriculum being followed in the undergraduate courses offered by OP No.5. It also provided detailed list of laboratories associated with each semester. This suggests that theoretical studies and laboratory experiments were to go hand-in-hand in each semester. It also suggests the existence of well-equipped laboratories”.
5. The prospectus, marked as Annexure – C, reiterates all these facts. The complainants visited the office of the OP No.5, situated at Ooty. OPs 1 to 4 are the functionaries of OP No.5. Mr. M.R. Sarangapani, Dean, OP 1 had invited Dr. Tarek Sobh, Director, School of Engineering & Design, University of Bridgeport, USA, to address the parents of the prospective students. Dr. Tarek Sobh was very convincing and drew very rosy picture of OP No.5, suggesting that OP5 is affiliated to University of Bridgeport. Subsequently, it transpired that he made a false claim. All the student-complainants took the admission in different Degree Courses of OP No.5. They had to pay heavy fees for taking admission. First of all, the OPs, originally demanded exorbitant fees, but when they found that the response of the students was lukewarm, they issued a revised fee-structure, copy of w
