Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 01-08-2014, passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in CC/500/2013, whereby the complaint case has been allowed.

The facts of the complaint case, as narrated in the petition of complaint, are that the Complainant took admission at the OP Institute for pursuing 3-years BBA course and deposited requisite fee for the same.  It is alleged that though classes for the said course was scheduled to start in the first week of February, 2013, the OP Institute could not start the said course in time and so, they asked the Complainant to pursue an integrated course instead.  Being frustrated, the Complainant asked for refunding the deposited fees which was, however, turned down by the OPs.  Hence, the complaint case was filed before the Ld. District Forum.

Counter case of the OPs was that the instant complaint case was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as the Complainant was not a consumer.  It was also claimed by the OPs that the Complainant attended classes for 7 days and thereafter, she played truant.  Further case of the OPs was that in the prospectus issued to the Complainant, it was clearly mentioned that deposited fees were non-refundable. Thus, the OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part.

Decision with reasons

Despite service of notice, the Respondent did not turn up before us.  Therefore, at the time of hearing, we have heard only the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants in the matter and gone through the material on record carefully.

It seems that none of the courses, so designed/developed by the Appellants, are recognized by either the AICTE or UGC.  It is to be clearly understood that no educational institution is authorized to run/devise any educational institution/course without having due statutory/regulatory approval for the same.  Thus, the contention of the Appellants that the various courses conducted by them being certificate courses, they require no affiliation from AICTE/UGC is a complete misnomer.

The Appellant Institution has been in the thick of controversies about its advertising for quite sometime. The  UGC as well as the AICTE have time and again issued public notices stating that they do not recognize the Appellants, and that they deem its programmes invalid.  In September 2014 Hon’ble Delhi High Court censured the Appellants for misleading students and restrained it from using words like MBA, BBA, management course, and b-school to describe the programs it offers.

It is clearly evident from the above that the Appellants indulged in unfair trade practice in utter disregard to the interests of thousands of hapless students like the Respondent. In absence of due regulatory approval, the certificates of Appellants were nothing but a mere piece of paper. Such being the nature of dispute, it clearly falls under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Therefore, we do not think that the Ld. District Forum committed any error in adjudicating the instant complaint case.

There is nothing to show that the Appellants started the BBA course in February, 2013 or that the Respondent attended classes (BBA Course) for 7 days, but subsequently abruptly rescued herself from the said course.   In any case, even if she indeed did so, it does not take away the fact that the Respondent fall victim of the sinister design of the Appellants.

In view of our findings that the Appellants indulged in unfair trade practice which has put the career prospect of the Respondent in jeopardy, we fully concur with the findings of the Ld. District Forum.

The Appeal is bereft of any merit; hence require no reconsideration.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed ex parte against the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.