Delhi

StateCommission

A/45/2018

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING & MANAGEMENT - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHANDRA SEKHAR YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

RATNESWAR DAS

26 Feb 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Hearing: 26.02.2018

 

                                                                                                        Date of Decision:01.03.2018

 

FIRST APPEAL NO-45/2018

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

          Indian Institute of Planning

          and management,

          D-13/448, 60 Feet Road,

          Chattarpur Dahari,

          New Delhi-110074                                                         ….Appellant                                                                                                                            

VERSUS

 

Sh. Chandra Sakhar Yadav,

R/o I-82,

Nanakpura,

New Delhi-110021                                                          ….Respondent

 

 

HON’BLE  SH. O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

 

 1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                               Yes

 

 

Present:   Sh. Ratneswar Das, Counsel for the appellant.

 

 

PER: SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (G)

Judgment

1.           Assailing the orders dated 02.03.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, New Delhi in CC 87/2015 in the matter of Sh. Chandra Sekhar Yadav vs. Indian Institute of Planning and Management, allowing the complaint with the direction to the OP1 and 2 to refund Rs. One Lakh to the complainant within 30 days alongwith simple interest @ 6% from the date of deposit, namely, 08.04.2013 and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment, the OPs before the Distt Fora, have preferred an appeal for short appellant before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) against the complainant before the Distt Fora, hereinafter referred to as respondent in this appeal, praying for setting aside the order impugned herein.
2.           Facts of the case in brief are as under:
3.           The complainant/respondent led by the advertisement of the appellant/opposite party regarding organising an integrated three years BBA+MBA course, admitted his son for undertaking the course and for this purpose he had deposited an amount of Rs One Lakh as the initial fee. The fee so paid was acknowledged. The complainant/respondent then realised after making inquiry that the course organised by the OPs is not recognised and therefore he sought for the refund which refund was not allowed. Consequently the complaint was filed before the Distt. Fora which complaint was allowed with direction to the appellant/OPs which directions have been assailed by way of this appeal.
4.           This appeal was listed before us for admission hearing on 26.02.2018 when the counsel for the appellant appeared and advanced his arguments. We have perused the records of the case. We have given a careful consideration to the subject matter.
5.           In the first instance we note that the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation. The impugned order was passed on 02.03.2016 whereas the appeal has been preferred on 24.01.2018. In terms of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 appeal assailing the orders of the Distt Fora is to be filed within 30 days. The said provision of the Act  posits as under:

 

“Any person aggrieved by on order made by the Distt Fora may prefer on appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such forum and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfy that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.”

 

6.           An application praying for condonation of delay has been filed (page 74 of the paper book) on the ground that the appellant accrued the knowledge of passing of the impugned order only in the matter of August 2017 whereafter they had applied for issue of certified copy of the order passed by the Distt Fora, which copy was made available to them only on17.12.2017. The appeal was filed on 24.01.2018. Prayer has been made for condonation of delay on these grounds.
7.           We have given our careful consideration to the subject. We do not find the cause explained for condonation of delay as sufficient to exercise our authority vested in us under provision to Section 15 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Anshul Aggarwal vs. Noida as reported in IV(2011) CPJ 63 (SC) was pleased not to condone the delay, sufficient grounds not having been explained, holding as under:

 

“Object of expeditions adjudication of Consumer Disputes will get defeated of this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of Consumer Foras- delay not condoned.”

 

8.           The Hon’ble Apex Court in yet another case in the matter of Lucknow Development Authority vs. Shyam Kapoor as reported in I(2013) CPJ I (SC) holding, inter alia as under:

 

“Order reveals that appellant was aware of said order regret from beginning. Yet appellant waited for over 4 ½ years to approach National Commission. Appellant failed to express any valid justification for having approached the National Commission belatedly. Revision petition was filed after the expiry period of limitation.”

 

9.           The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Nilesh Goyal vs Symphony infrastructure Pvt Ltd. as reported in IV(2016) CPJ 678 (NC) is pleased to hold as under:

 

“Delay of 209 days. Reason for condonation was that the appellant was occupied in business and legal opinion received from different. Explanation not accepted. Delay not condoned since explanation not satisfactory.”

 

10. Having regard to the discussion done and the law laid down we are not inclined to condone the delay since sufficient cause not shown in this behalf. Once the delay is not condoned, the appeal being barred by limitation is also dismissed.
11. Besides on merit also we do not find any substance in the appeal. The complainant/respondent had sought for admission in the three year integrated course of BBA+MBA from the institute of the OP/appellant in respect of his son in the bona fide belief that the institute is approved by the UGC or accredited with AICET. But later it was found that the OPs were not approved and therefore the complainant sought for the withdrawal of the candidature and consequently sought for the refund which refund was not allowed despite sincere effort and exercise having been done. It is not the case of the OPs that the institution was duly approved with UGC or affiliated with agency or authority which had obtained the accreditation. This act on the part of the OP amounts of unfair trade practice. If that be the case the OPs on the request made is under an obligation to refund the fee.
12. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Sh. Aloysius college vs Harsharaj Gatty as reported in I(2016) CPJ 371(NC) is pleased to hold as under:

 

“Petitioner (college) ought not to have started course before obtaining requisite approval of university. True state of affairs as regards approval of University not disclosed to candidates. No employer is likely to give appropriate employment to technical person or strength of course passed by him, unless he is given a degree or at least provisional certificate by University. Unfair trade practice proved.”

 

13. In this view of the matter and the discussion done the appeal is not maintainable even on merit. We accordingly dismiss the appeal both on limitation and on merit. No cost.
14. Ordered accordingly.
15. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. A copy of the order may be forwarded to the Distt Fora for information.
16. File be consigned to record.

 

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (GENERAL)                                                                            MEMBER (JUDICIAL)