Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1147/2012

Laxman Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. All India Council For Technical Education - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

 (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1147/12                      Dated:

In the matter of:    

Sh. Laxman Singh

S/o. Sh. Om Prakash

R/o. 7/26, 3^rd FL, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-18

               ……..COMPLAINANT

         

VERSUS

1.     The Director (PG) (AICTE)

        All India Council for Technical Education

        7^th floor Chanderlok Building

        Janpath, New Delhi.

 

2.     The Director,

        Haryana State Counseling Society

        Bays 7-12, Sector- 4, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

3.     Sh. Rajiv Jain,

        Chairman of Bhagwan Mahaveer Institute of

        Education Technology, Sonipat, Haryana

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

The deficiency highlighted in the case is failure of AICTE, OP1 to get its direction on refund of fee, enforced by the institute (OP3) who after getting approval of AICTE are showing thumbs to student and AICTE, when refund is applied though applied in time.

AICTE is a public body which approves and regulates the technical education in India and inter-alia controls admissions on all India basis based on all India entrant tests etc. On getting reports of numerous malpractices indulged in by various technical institutes in collecting advance fee for the full year at the time of admission, and complaints of non return of original documents of students to prevent them from moving to other institutes and seeking refund of fee, and other complaints of non return of fee on student cancelling his admission before the prescribed last date of admission, AICTE issued public notifications to inform the institutes and general affected public about the policy framed by it to be followed by all enjoying recognition of institute imparting technical education including universities.

The Bhagwaan Mahaveer Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sonipat, District Haryana, is one such institute. In order to sell the seats under Management Quota, to those students who failed to get admission on merit based admission seats in various institutes, but had appeared in all India Entrance tests, but ranked very low in terms of performance ranking below even lakh, got counseling for such seat done online in Delhi through Haryana State Counseling Society, for AICTE approved technical courses for 2012-13.

The son of complainant with rank No.195584 under AIC  availed the counseling in Delhi , by depositing counseling fee in Axis Bank, and was instantaneously granted Information Technology Branch, in Sonipat institute mentioned above. He was directed to deposit tuition fee from 31^st July 2012 to 2^nd August 2012 and he accordingly deposited Rs.70,200/- as full year fee on 1.8.12.,and institute took his signatures in the name of undertaking  not to claim any refund of fee, though orally assured that in case he applies for refund before last date of admissions on 31^st August 2012 in case of cancellation for taking admission to any other Government institute, he will be refunded fee.  The Chapter 9 of Haryana State Counseling Society, provided for Refund of Semester Fee Deposited by Candidates in the Allotted Institutes.

The said chapter provided that as per AICTE public notice Advt. No. AICTE/DPG/03(01)/2008  provided        that should a student leave after joining course even after joining course, whether the vacant  seat has been filled or not, the fee should be returned with proportionate reduction of monthly fee and proportional hostel rent if applicable. It also stated that student should make refund application before 31^st August 2012 and take a receipt or give refund intimation on line to www.hscs.org. It further provided that if institute does not return the fee, the candidate can approach AICTE for necessary action, though ultimate responsibility lies with the institute for refund.

The above described involvement of AICTE in every stage including admission through Management quota in technical institutes approved by it shows that its mandate and policy is central and enforceable at its end, if the student brings the non cooperation or violation of it by the technical institute as well  as of HSCS or by it.

The student was able to get admission in some other institute and applied for cancellation of admission on 29^th August 2012 seeking refund and this request was before the last date of 31^st August 2012. The institute did not oblige and rather demanded full 3years course fee and reminded the student of his signed undertaking obtained by him while giving admission to him under All India Category all India on line counseling. He brought it to notice of AICTE, HSCS. The AICTE sent him further information that it has asked all institutes to set up grievance redressal machinery and an Ombudsman to hear such grievances. The HSCS studied the complaint on the request of AICTE and found that at best the institute can retain only one semester fee. This apparently was wrong in the light of timely submission of request for refund by the student, yet the institute did not agree with it. Faced with this affair, the Complainant made this complaint making AICTE, HSCS and institute a party to the proceedings.

In our considered view, since whole process is done under the control and aegis of AICTE, including counseling under Management Quota, and the fact that all institutes have to only act in conformity with AICTE approvals, the institute is to be taken only as a pro-forma proper party to complete the picture and the deficiency, if any, is to be get enforced through controlling authority AICTE, without directly bringing the delinquent institute in picture for seeking removal of deficiency, particularly when it has chosen to contract out of the policy of refund by obtaining an undertaking from the student.

In the light of above discussion, we have considered the matter, submissions and material on record at length. In order to amicably resolve the issue in the light of redresal machinery and Scheme of Ombudsman, the complainant was asked to approach it. He has reported that no such machinery and ombudsman has been constituted.

The institute, OP3 in its reply has taken shelter behind technical pleas of jurisdiction citing Supreme Court Judgments and to say that Educational institutes are not service providers and students are not consumers.  It has also strongly pleaded the undertaking given by the student that he has understood the import of Supreme Court Judgment in some case, which allowed institute to retain the fee etc. and openly refused to return the fee as per AICTE guidelines/public policy and law.

Since, we have considered the OP3 only a pro-forma party in the light of central role of AICTE in this matter in getting the deficiencies removed by institutes, we refrain from expressing on the technical nature of pleas taken by it, except to observe that it has literally defeated the effect of AICTE rules on refund by route of an undertaking from a secondary pass student and his parents to sign that they would not claim refund. Such a contract, which defeats public policy is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act,1872,  Thus the institute has come before the Forum with unclean hands, as this institute does want to be governed by norms of its approving authority and indulges in unfair business practice by coercing the approved candidate by charging him for sale of education under the guise of online counseling to market its quota all over India to highest bidder at a price set by its Management  to trade in education, and cites Supreme Court orders, which decries selling of education.  The law courts uphold law abiders and law only protects those who protect and obey law and not those who violate law and rules. Taking advantage of its position to contract out of law by showing SC judgment to those illiterate in law and just school passed out to satisfy their insatiable greed, to ask the student to ask to deposit 3 years advance fee, knowing that the student has sought cancellation of admission according to dates told to him.

Such a violence indeed by preachers of Non-violence by setting up institutes in the name of Bhagwaan Mahavir, should introspect and should be ashamed of its thoughts and conduct.

The AICTE in its reply has reiterated the rules framed by it and OP3 HSCS has not explained how one full semester fee is allowed to be retained by OP3, as against allowed Rs.10,000/- only.

In the light of above discussion, we direct AICTE to get its public policy enforced by OP3, by way of serving a show cause notice as to why it took an undertaking after the admission was ordered by HSCS and why it refused to abide by the AICTE norms, mentioned in the Chapter 9 of the HSCS book and why its recognition should not be withdrawn from next academic year.                               We also order the AICTE first get the refund of fee sought by student with interest at the rate of 12% from date of seeking refund till date of payment. We also determine compensation and litigation expenses at Rs.50,000/-which AICTE  would on realization  from OP3  deposit with the Forum, within 30 days of receipt of  this order. It will also order OP3 to get any other deposits if made by the complainants as for transport etc. if not already refunded.

The Chairman, AICTE, is directed to get the order implemented and get compliance of all directions in this order reported failing which action under law will be initiated.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

        Pronounced in open Court on 16.02.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)         (RITU GARDOIA)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER