Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/182

ASIAN PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHANJAY - Opp.Party(s)

08 Oct 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

 

Date of Hearing: 08.10.2018

                                                                                                              

                                                                   Date of decision:12.10.2018

 

 

First Appeal No. 182/2011

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

ASIA PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,

Opposite pocket E, Sarita Vihar,

New Delhi-110044.

 

2. Amrendra kumar Srivastva, Chairman,

    Asia Pacific Institute of Management,

    Opposite Pocket E, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110044.

    Both at 3 and 4 Institutional Area, Jasola,

 

                                                                                                ...Appellant

 

 

VERSUS

 

Shri Dhanjay, son of Shri Lalan Singh,

House No. 621, Second Floor, Sunlight Colony,

Near Balasahib Gurudware, New Delhi-110014.                                                                                                                                      …Respondent

 

 

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

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (GENERAL)

 

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. L.K. Passi, Counsel for the Appellant

                   None for the Respondent, He is Ex-parte.

 

PER:           ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

 

1.           Assailing the orders dated 25.03.2011 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum X in the complaint case No. 306/2006 in the matter of Sh. Dhanjay Verses Asia Pacific Institute of Management, at New Delhi, allowing the complaint and directing the respondents to pay back Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation, the Asia Pacific Institute of Management have preferred an appeal before this Commission for short appellant under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, (the Act) against Sh. Dhanjay hereinafter referred to as Respondents.
2.           Facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the appeal are these.
3.           Sh. Dhanjay, resident of New Delhi had sought for and was allowed admission in MBA + PGDM programme after undergoing the process of selection comprising of, among others, group discussion and personal interview, conducted by the Appellant/Opposite parties. It was informed that the MBA degree would be awarded by IASE, Deemed University, recognised by the University Grants Commission. Fee for the course as indicated in the schedule was Rs. 3,70,000/- and the complainant on the admission having been confirmed, and on the assurance of the Appellant/OPs that after the successful conclusion of the course, degree from the UGC recognised University, would be awarded, paid Rs. 70,000/- being the first instalment of first year course. Soon thereafter the complainant realized that the course undertaken by him is not validly recognised either by the UGC as claimed or by AICET. The OPs were approached for clarification and in response thereto assurance came that the MBA degree to the successful candidates on the conclusion of the course would be awarded by the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar recognised by Distance Learning Programme. However, even this was found to be unrecognised.
4.           Under these circumstances the complainant sought for withdrawal of the admission as also for refund of fee which request not having been allowed, the consumer complaint was filed seeking refund and compensation. The said complaint having been allowed, the OPs before the District Forum have preferred an appeal praying for allowing the appeal and for setting aside of the order on the ground that the District Forum could not appreciate that as per the agreement fee is not liable to be refunded.  
5.           The respondents were noticed and they, having not appeared despite service of notice, have been ordered to be proceeded ex-parte vide proceedings recorded on 21.12.2012. This matter was listed before us for final hearing on 08.10.208 when the Ld. Counsel for the appellant appeared and advanced his arguments. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. We have perused the records of the case and given a careful consideration to the subject.
6.            Two folded arguments were advanced by the appellant, namely, the course undertaken by them is duly and validly recognised, the fact which appears to be factually not correct since no cogent or substantial evidence or documents have been placed before us in support of the averment and, secondly, as per agreement arrived at between them at the time of admission, except security amount, no other amount was liable to be refunded in the event of withdrawal of admission from the course.

7.       Point for adjudication in the given case in  whether there exists any infirmity in the orders passes by the District Forum and whether the admission of candidates by the unrecognised and unaffiliated Institute amounts to misrepresentation in which case the institute is liable to refund the fee plus interest and compensation in the event admission is withdrawn.

8.       It is an undisputed fact that the appellant had undertaken the course not recognised or affiliated either with the UGC or AITEC. The Ld. Counsel could not draw our attention to any document confirming that the course is duly recognised. No evidence has been led in support. It is a trite law that the institute not recognised cannot start the admission. If admission are done, the institute doing so is liable to refund the fees with interest.

9.       The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Bhupesh Khurana and others Versus Buddhist Mission Dental College and Hospital in OP 168/94 decided on 29.09.2000 is pleased to observe that this is an admitted position that the appellant institute in neither affiliated with the Magadh University nor recognized by the Dental Council of India. In the absence of affiliation by the Magadh University and recognized by the Dental Council, the appellant institute could not have started admissions in the four years degree course of BDS. The Commission after hearing the learned counsel for the parties rightly came to the conclusion as under:

“To our mind, the contention is unfounded. Reading the advertisement and prospectus as a whole, there is no manner of doubt that the impression given was that the College was affiliated with the Magadh University and was recognized by the Dental Council of India. If the College has not been affiliated and recognized, there was no occasion in admitting the students and wasting their valuable academic years. Moreover, the opposite parties have been admitting the students right from the year 1991-92 upto the year 1995 on this representation that the College was affiliated and recognized by the Dental Council of India. It cannot be denied that without affiliation to the Magadh University and recognition granted by the V. the so-called  dental degree of BDS is just a useless piece of paper. The representation given in the advertisement that the College was under Magadh University and by the Dental Council of India could be taken by a common person to mean that the college had been given recognition by the Dental Council of India and was affiliated to the Magadh University.

 

10.     The Hon’ble NCDRC came to the conclusion in that case that this was a case of total misrepresentation on behalf of the Institute which tantamount to unfair trade practice. The respondents were admitted to the BDS course for receiving education for consideration by the appellant college which was neither affiliated nor recognized for imparting education. This clearly falls within the purview of deficiency as defined in the Consumer Protection  Act, which defines the deficiency as under:

 

’’Deficiency’ means any fault imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”

 

11.     The Hon’ble Commission has rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the institute and the claimants respondents are entitled to claim the relief as prayed in the plaint. The appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

12.     The aforesaid view of the Hon’ble NCDRC has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No: 1135/2001 decided on 13.02.2009.

 

13.     In this view of the matter and keeping in view the legal position we are of the considered view that the complainant/respondent is entitled for the refund of Rs. 70,000/- Amount of Rs. 10,000/- having already been refunded, the complainant as on date would be entitled to the refund of Rs. 60,000/-. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited with this Commission as statutory deposite be released to the complainant within ten days of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The appellants would accordingly refund to the complainant within one month the remaining amount of Rs. 35,000/- with 10% simple interest from the date of receipt of the amount till realization. We are conscious of the fact that the respondent has not filed any cross appeal for awarding interest. However the law is that once a party obtains stay against payment  and ultimately looses the litigation, it is liable to pay interest  on unpaid amount. This view is fortified by a Division Bench decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Radha Ballabh Suresh Chandra Vs. UOI 1992, Rajdhani Law Reporter (DB) 374.

 

14.     Ordered accordingly.

 

15.     A copy of this order be forwarded to both the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. A copy of this order be sent to the District Forum for information.

 

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                                     (O.P.  GUPTA)

       MEMBER                                                                                                           MEMBER  (JUDICIAL)