THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF APRIL 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 40/2018
Indian Institute of Planning and Management
D-13/448, 60 Feet Road, Chattarapur Pahari,
New Delhi-110 074
Through its Authorized Representative
Sri. Vishal Gupta,
Vide Resolution of the Governing Body Dt:17.10.2017.
….Appellant/s.
(By Sri/Smt. Shashank Kumar, Adv.,)
-Versus-
Ramprasad S/o Chinachinkar Building
R/o Chinachinkar Building, 4th Cross,
U.B.Hill Road, Behind Shindhe Laundry,
Dharwad-580 007.
(By Sri/Smt. Raghavendra R.Desai, Adv.,)
……….. Respondent/s
: ORDERS:
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – LADY MEMBER
The O.P. preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated:25/07/2016 passed by the Bangalore Urban District Consumer Forum in C.C.no.407/2015.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The Opposite Party No.1 is having its Head Quarters and Corporate office at New Delhi and Branch office at Koramangala, Bangalore and gave an advertisement offering full time MBA and BBA course. The complainant visited to the website of Opposite Party at Dharwad and was lured and misguided by their advertisement and prospectus portraying, as if, Opposite Party has recognition in India from Belgaum. Complainant with a craze for acquiring foreign education and it will open doors for international placement, approached Opposite Parties Institution for admission to MBA course. Complainant received a letter from Professor A.Sandeep dated:16.04.2014 informing the complainant that he has been selected for full time MBA integrated programme in planning and entrepreneurship at Bangalore and requested to pay admission, assessment, processing and first installment fees.
2(a) The complainant further submitted that he got admitted to full time MBA course in Opposite Party No.2, located at Kormangala, Bangalore and paid Rs.49,000/- on 16.04.2014through NEFT S.B.I. Dharwad on 13.06.2014 through NEFT S.B.I. Dharwad paid Rs.1,51,000/- and on 28.06.2014 paid Rs.1,22,300/- by way of cash vide receipt No.2539 and on 20.08.2014 Rs.1,25,000/- by way of cash vide receipt No.2579. In total the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.4,47,300/- to Opposite Party No.2 at Bangalore. After receipt of the above said amount from complainant Opposite Parties admitted him for full time MBA course in Opposite Party No.2 Institution. Complainant has attended the P.G.Classes from 28.07.2014 to 26.09.2014. On 27.09.2014 complainant received a message at about 7.00 PM informing that Delhi High Court on 26.09.2014 restrained Mr.Arindam Chaudhari and the IIPM or its Dean and other officials, from offering MBA, BBA courses or advertising as a management and business school.
2(b) The complainant further submitted that he realized that the Opposite Party indulged in unfair and deceptive practice decided to forthwith discontinue the unrecognized MBA course in Opposite Party institution. With immediate effect complainant along with his mother first approached IIPM, Bangalore officials Mr.Sai Bose to convey their said decision, text message received in his mobile on 27.09.2014 the said Mr.Sai Bose advised the complainant to serve a letter on the discontinuation of MBA programme to the office of Opposite Party No.2. Accordingly complainant submitted the letter for discontinuation and made a demand for refund of his amount in the office of Opposite Party No.2. The said letter is served to Opposite Party No.1 under Registered post A.D. After return to Dharwad, the complainant sent the said letter through RPAD to the Bangalore SS/14 office which is returned as refused. Opposite Parties have concealed the order dated:02.12.2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi in the PIL petition filed by one Mr.Mahesh Sharma, wherein the Opposite Party No.1 is sued as respondent No.4 directing to comply in letter and spirit that the statement given and recorded in the said order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Further in violation of the said order and the restraint imposed by the Delhi High Court, Opposite Parties have deceived the complainant and admitted to the MBA programme, which had no prior approval either from UGC or AICTE which is mandatory and compulsory. Thus, Opposite Parties have cheated the complainant and restored to deceptive and unfair trade practice.
2(c) The complainant further submitted that the parents of the complainant have incurred burden of interest charged by the SBI, Dharwad Branch in arranging aforesaid huge payment to Opposite Parties and further have to spend Rs.1,00,000/- and enrolling complainant in a recognized institution imparting MBA course. Complainant is forced to suffer mental strain to update his studies, due to late enrolment for MBA in KLE Society’s IMSR Institute, Vidyanagar, Hubli. Therefore, complainant to issued legal notice through their advocate dated:29.12.2014 calling upon Opposite Parties to refund Rs.4,52,800/- within 7 days failing which he will take legal remedies for recovery of the amount at the cost of the Opposite Party. The said notice is served on Opposite Party No.1 on 04.12.2014, Opposite Party No.2 refused to receive the same. Opposite Parties have neither cared to refund the amount paid to them nor replied to the said notice. Complainant had filed C.C.No.8/2015 before Dharwad District Commission on the assumption that part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. The said complaint is dismissed as no jurisdiction. Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Under the circumstances, he is advised to file this complaint against Opposite Party for appropriate relief.
3. After issuance of notice by the District Commission, appellant/Opposite Parties did not appear before this District Commission in spite of service of notice. Hence, they were placed Ex-parte.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.4,47,300/- to the complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from 20.08.2014 till realization together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. We have heard the arguments from both sides.
7. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission, Bangalore where we noticed that it is an admitted fact that for getting better education, the Respondent took admission for MBA Integrated Programme in planning and entrepreneurship for the session 2014-2017 and paid a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- and attended the classes from 28th July 2014 to 26th September 2014. However, now Respondent demanded for the refund of the admission fee.
8. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that when on 27.09.2014, the respondent has received a message at about 7.00 PM informing that Delhi High Court on 26.09.2014 restrained Mr.Arindam Chaudhari and the IIPM or its Dean and other officials from offering MBA, BBA courses or advertising as a Management and business school. Accordingly, the respondent submitted a letter for discontinuation and made a demand for refund of his amount. However, in spite of several requests and also demand notice dated:29.12.2014, the appellant has not made any efforts. Hence, the respondent has filed the complaint C.C.No.8/2015 before the Dharwad District Commission and the said complaint was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Hence, the respondent has filed the complaint before the District Commission, Bangalore on 02.03.2015 in C.C.No.407/2015, wherein the District Commission has issued notice to Opposite Parties and notice was served on both parties.
9. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that in spite of service of notice, the Opposite Parties remained absent. Hence, they placed Ex-parte.
10. Now the appellant has come in appeal before us on various grounds and produced some documents and contended that the appellant has never got any information regarding the proceedings of the District Commission against them. Moreover, contended that there is a delay of 498 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed the delay condonation application along with affidavit.
11. In the present case, the District Commission passed an Ex-parte order on 25.07.2016 and the appellant has filed this appeal before the State Commission on 05.01.2018 i.e. after lapse of 498 days, which is abnormal delay in our opinion. The appellant has contended in his affidavit that the appellant came to know about the proceedings only in October-2017 when some appellant officials visited the office of the appellant and informed the Security Guard about the warrant issued from the District Commission, Bangalore. After receiving this information, immediately the appellant had to search for lawyer at Bangalore and sent their counsel in New Delhi to go to Bangalore and apply for the certified copies of the order dated:25.07.2016.
12. Perused the order-sheet, the District Commission has issued notice to the Opposite Parties on 09.03.2015 through RPAD which was served on Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 was absent and hence placed Ex-parte and await notice of Opposite Party No.1, subsequently, on 26.06.2015, the District Commission issued reminder to the Postal Department and on 19.08.2015, the District Commission mentioned in the order-sheet that “notice serviced on Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.1 absent, placed Ex-parte”. In spite of service of notice, the appellant remained absent. Hence, it is gross negligence on the part of appellant only in filing such a belated appeal. Intentionally and willfully the appellant remained absent before the District Commission. After service of notice by the District Commission, the appellant has an opportunity to present and defend and contest the matter.
13. The appellant contended that he came to know about the proceedings only when the District Commission has issued the warrant against him. When the warrant was served on the appellant on the same address, why cannot the notice. Hence, it is the baseless reason of the appellant. In view of considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that no sufficient cause has shown explaining the delay of 498 days by the appellant and we are not satisfied with the reasons of the appellant stated in the accompanying affidavit filed with the delay condonation application. Hence, without discussing the main matter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for delay. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:25.07.2016 passed by Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.407/2015 is confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
