Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SURJIT SINGH, VIJAY PAL KHACHI, JJ.
DIVYA INSTITUTE - Appellant
Versus
JOGENDER SAINI - Respondent
First Appeal No. 197 of 2016
Decided on : 02-08-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Swaran Sharma, Vice Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocates
The responsibility for delivering certificates/degrees under the Consumer Protection Act is based on the party to whom the fees were paid, but the entitlement to relief is contingent on the veracity of the claim.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - MBA Course - Section 12 - Summary: The court allowed a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, directing the appellant to collect and deliver MBA course mark-sheets/degrees to the complainants and pay compensation and litigation expenses. The court found that the appellant was responsible for delivering the certificates/degrees as the fees were paid to the appellant. However, the court later found discrepancies in the complainants' claims and concluded that they were not entitled to the relief sought.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a complaint against the appellant and others, seeking MBA course mark-sheets/degrees and compensation. The appellant contested the complaint, stating that the certificates were to be collected and delivered by another respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was initially responsible for delivering the certificates/degrees as the fees were paid to the appellant. However, discrepancies in the complainants' claims led the court to conclude that they were not entitled to the relief sought.
Issues: Discrepancies in the complainants' claims, responsibility for delivering certificates/degrees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was responsible for delivering the certificates/degrees as the fees were paid to the appellant. However, discrepancies in the complainants' claims led the court to dismiss the complaint.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint filed by the respondents was dismissed.
ORDER :
SURJIT SINGH, J.
1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 01.04.2016, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it and respondents No. 4 & 5, by respondents No. 1, 2 & 3, has been allowed and a direction given to it to collect detailed mark-sheets/degrees of MBA course of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 from respondent No. 5 and deliver the same to respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 within two months, from the date of receipt of copy of order and also to pay Rs. 10,000/-, to each of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3, as compensation and Rs. 10,000/-, as litigation expenses.
2. Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellant and respondents No. 4 & 5, alleging that they had taken admission for two years MBA course of respondent No. 4 -, University, with the appellant institute, known as Divya Institute and paid a fee of Rs. 40,000/- each, against receipts Annexures C-1 to C-3. It was alleged that the session was over in 2008 and they had taken the examination, but mark-sheets/certificates/degrees had not been issued. So, they sought direction to the appellant and respondents No. 4 & 5, to issue mark-sheets/certificates/degrees and also to pay compensation & litigation expenses.
3. Only the appellant appeared and contested the complaint. Respondents No. 4 & 5 did not appear, despite service. They were, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. Appellant did not deny that respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 had paid the fees, as alleged by them, but it was stated that they had taken admission at the institute, run by respondent No. 5 and the certificates were to be collected and delivered to respondents No. 1, 2 & 3, by the said respondent.
4. Initially, the complaint was filed by respondents No. 1, 2 & 3, against the appellant and respondent No. 4. It was only after the appellant raised the plea that respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 had taken admission in the institute, known as Khanchi Education Society, i.e. respondent No. 5, that the said respondent was impleaded as opposite party No. 3.
5. Learned District Forum has concluded that since the fee was paid by respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 to the appellant, it is the appellant, who is responsible for delivery of certificates/degrees to respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and with this finding, impugned order has been passed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.
7. Respondents have not appeared, despite service of notice. Undoubtedly, fees was paid by respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 to the appellant, against receipts Annexures C-1, C2 & C3. Appellant does not deny this fact. However, in the joint affidavit of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3, which is available at pages 69 to 75, it is declared that Khanchi Education Society - respondent No. 5, is the study centre of respondent No. 4 and it is this study centre, which is competent body to declare results and send the certificates to the complainants.
8. This apart, from a reading of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3's own evidence, it is made out that they had not taken the examination of all the four semesters, entitling them to seek MBA degree of respondent No. 4 - University. Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 have stated that a written application was given to the appellant by one of them, namely respondent, Harry Garg (respondent No. 3). In this application, which is dated 28.04.2010, it is written that applicant (respondent No. 3) had taken examination of three semester.
9. It is also doubtful, if respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 had, in fact, taken any examination at all. In the complaint, it is stated that respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 had taken admission in the appellant's institute, for the session 2007 & 2008 and paid fee, against receipts Annexures C-1, C-2 & C-3. Respondents No. 2 & 3, paid their fees on 04.04.2007, as per receipts, Annexure C-2 & C-3 and respondent No. 1 paid the fees on 12
