Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 23-06-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (Central) in CC/317/2015, whereof the complaint has been allowed.
In short, case of the Complainant is that, she took admission at the OP No. 1 Institution for the purpose of pursuing an MBA course and took all the four semester examinations and duly completed MBA programme. On successful completion of said programme, although the Complainant received Postgraduate Certificate, but she was not awarded any MBA degree as promised. Subsequently, it transpired that the OP No. 1 had no authority whatsoever to award MBA degree. In view of this, the complaint was filed.
By submitting a WV, the OPs submitted that the instant dispute is not maintainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (II) SCC 159. It is further stated that the OP No. 1 was knowledge Hub of EIILM University, Sikkim. The Complainant was admitted at the University through this OP. The OP conducted classes, set question papers, held examinations, examined the answer scripts and thereafter, used to send those answer scripts to the University for preparing mark sheets and issue degree certificates. It is stated that, officials of the EIILM University were implicated in a criminal case. Therefore, the students were apprised of the uncertain situation in respect of the final disposal of the criminal case. Since there was legal complication to provide degrees from EIILM University, Sikkim, all students were advised to avail of the opportunity of being enrolled in Vidyasagar University though in that case, they would require to extend the tenure of their studies further. Claiming that the turn of events were beyond the control of the OPs, they prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons
We have heard the averments of the Ld. Advocates of the parties and perused the documents on record.
Although the Appellants strongly disputed the status of the Respondent as a ‘consumer’, it seems that the bone of contention does not revolve over imparting of ‘education’, but indulgence of the Appellants in unfair trade practice (conducting courses without due authority). Therefore, the referred decisions have got no bearing in the present case. Since Consumer Forum is competent enough to deal with disputes surrounding ‘deficiency in service’ and/or ‘unfair trade practice’, the Ld. District Forum committed no infirmity by adjudicating the dispute. Objection raised by the Appellants in this regard is not tenable. In this regard, the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2018 (1) CPR 596 (NC) and 2018 (1) CPR 715 (NC) is worth mentioning.
The Ld. District Forum, as it appears, has gone at great length to call the bluff of the Appellants very meticulously and therefore, we refrain from delving into those aspects any further. It is quite evident that the Appellants acted beyond their terms of reference; they allured hapless students with tall promises, but eventually failed to fulfill such commitments, in the process jeopardized the career prospect of scores of innocent students. This is unpardonable.
None of the points raised in the Memo of Appeal seem at all convincing to us to reserve the impugned order wholly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order for payment of penalty @ Rs. 100/- per diem appears to be too harsh and therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we are inclined to trim this portion of the order.
The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The Appeal stands allowed on contest in part against the Respondent. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellant need not pay the penalty amount @ Rs. 100/- per diem as ordered by the Ld. District Forum.
