Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/32

KU.RUMINA KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHNA RAO KHOT - Opp.Party(s)

MS. SHABINA ALI

04 Mar 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 09.12.2015 passed in C.C.No.45/2015 by District Commission, Mandla)

 

KU. RUMEENA KHAN.                                                                                    …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

KRISHNARAO KHOT MANAGEMENT & TECHNICAL

COLLEGE.                                                                                                        …         RESPONDENT.                                      

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                           :      PRESIDING MEMBER 

                                                

 

                                      O R D E R

04.03.2022

 

          Ms. Shabina Ali, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.

                       

As per Dr. Monika Malik :                       

            This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandla (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.45/2015 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by her.  

2.                The complainant/appellant had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party by enrolling her in B.Ed course for the session 2007-08 without having affiliation for the same. It is alleged that the complainant had to suffer loss of one year on aforesaid account.

3.                The opposite party/respondent educational institution resisted the complaint stating that their institutution was having temporarily affiliation and students were duly informed in aforesaid regard. It is further stated that enrolled

-2-

students were well informed with regard to the rules and regulations regarding examination conduction and declaration of results, which was as per direction issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP.  Therefore, there has been no deficiency in service on their part.  

4.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party/respondent to pay Rs.35,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a., from date of filing of the complaint, till its realization. Additionaly, Rs.5000/- was awarded as compensation, with costs of Rs.1000/-.

5.                Heard.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the District Commission has not adequately passed award in favour of the complainant.  The opposite party/respondent had merely offered refund of the fees deposited by the complainant/appellant and the District Commission has awarded that only. The complainant deserves to be compensated with an amount of Rs.1 lac on account of deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, in pursuance of order dated 10.09.2014 passed by High Court of M.P. in Writ Petition No.165/2014.  

7.                Learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party argued that it is established from the evidence available on record that the complainant was not charged any amount for B.Ed. course in which she was enrolled.  Their institution was having temporary affiliation and they had never hidden this fact from the students enrolled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order in SLP had permitted

 

-3-

the provisionally admitted students to participate in examination but had ordered that their result shall not be published.  The enrolled students were well informed

in aforesaid regard and it was entirely their decision to appear in the examination.  There is no ground to award Rs.1lac, as prayed by the complainant.  The opposite party had offered Rs.35,000/- to the complainant as also the other enrolled students and the complainant/appellant does not deserve any further amount. The order passed by the District Commission does not suffer from any illegality.  This appeal filed by the complainant is without any basis and deserves to be dismissed.  

8.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record as also the impugned order, it is observed that there that there is Exhibit ‘D-1’ on record which shows that the respondent institution was granted temporary affiliation by Rani Durgawati University, Jabalpur for starting B.Ed course for the session 2007-08. Exhibit ‘D-2’ and ‘D-3’ are orders of National Council for Teacher Education (A Statutory Body of the Government of India) by which conditional recognition was given to the respondent institution for B.Ed course as per Regulations of 2005. Exhibit ‘D-4’ is a letter of Commissioner, Higher Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh addressed to Registrar, Rani Durgawati University, Jabalpur by which the respondent institution was given permission to start B.Ed course for the session 2007-08.

9.                The High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 05.09.2007 in Writ Petition No. 12078/2007 (Exhibit D-10) had permitted the respondent institution to do counselling and to admit students provisionally at their own risk without accepting fees from them.  Also we find that there is nothing on record

-4-

which could show that the respondent had accepted fees from the appellant for enrolment in B.Ed. course.  The aforesaid makes it apparently clear and strenghthens the submission of the respondent that they had only provisionally admitted the appellant without charging any amount from her.

10.               Indisputably, the High Court of M.P.vide order dated 13.03.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.6146 of 2008 had cancelled recognition and affiliation granted to the respondent institution, against which an SLP was filed.  Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.08.2009 (Exhibit D-5) while granting interim stay had directed “ Until further orders, the students who have been admitted shall not be disturbed and shall be allowed to appear in the ensuing examination, subject to the result of these Special Leave Petitions.” (Exhibit D-6) is the order dated 08.10.2009 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP filed by which it is ordered “The students admitted provisionally by the petitioners may be permitted to participate in the examination but their results shall not be published.” It is apparent that owing to the aforesaid events, the result of the students was not published.

11.               The opposite party/respondent had offered for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant. The District Commission directed the respondent for payment of Rs.35,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. In addition compensation of Rs.5000/- with cost of Rs.1000/- was also awarded to the complainant. The District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order, on due consideration of facts and circumstances of the matter.

 

-5-

12.               There is no ground for enhancement of compensation, as argued by learned counsel for the appellant since the High Court vide order dated 12.02.2015 in Contempt Petition had observed that there is no case for initiating action for contempt as there has been no such direction to pay amount of compensation by the High Court.

13.               Accordingly, this appeal by the complainant/appellant is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. 

 

                                                                                   (Dr. Monika Malik)                            

                                                                                   Presiding Member