Order No. 10 dt. 18/05/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant came across an advertisement in Sambad Pratidin that admission in one year Post Graduate Diploma Course in Gerontology and Age Management. The complainant also came to learn that the course was duly affiliated and recognized by the University of Calcutta and the course fee for the said one year post graduate diploma course was Rs.15,000/-, the complainant paid the said amount and took the admission. The curriculum consisting of nine subjects totaling to 600 marks, classes were conducted twice a week and after the end of the course the mark sheet and certificates are provided on perusal of the said mark sheet and certificate the complainant got suspicious regarding the authenticity of much claimed affiliation of the University of Kolkata, on the contrary the complainant noticed that the certificate did not bear the Memo No. which is usually given by the University of Calcutta upon granting affiliation to a particular course. The complainant after obtaining a photo copy of the mark sheet approached the students of the previous year batch and came to learn that mark sheets provided to the batches prior to 2015 had the Memo No. given of the proforma o.ps when the complainant got suspicious he filed an application under RTI to Calcutta University and wanted to know whether the said course is recognized or not. The University informed that the course was recognized but failed to provide any copy of reference issued by University of Calcutta. Thereafter an appeal was preferred and the appellant informed representative of o.ps-1 to mention Memo No. along with date, logo, roll no. and serial no. etc. on such certificate. The representative of CMIG agreed to the such proposal. After such hearing the complainant received a copy of the order and thereafter received the document and after going through the document he came to learn that CMIG granted the provisional affiliation for 5 years effective from 7.4.2008 to 7.4.2013 of the provisional affiliation was terminated on 6.4.2013. the complainant had taken admission in the said course CMIG on 30.10.2013 when the course was not affiliated and recognized by University of Calcutta. The complainant thereafter went to the Office of the o.ps-1 and wanted the old mark sheet of the complainant so that he can be provided with a new mark sheet but the o.ps did not handover the same and complainant did not accept the same. On the basis of the said fact the o.ps failed to provide the new mark sheet. Against the said action of the Appellate Authority the complainant has preferred an appeal before the State Information Commission because of such act on the part of the o.pss the complainant has suffered and on the basis of the said fact complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and for unfair trade practice of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for litigation cost.
O.p nos. 1 and 2 contested the case while filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complainant. It was stated that the o.ps argued that they never claimed for affiliation from the University of Calcutta. The o.p.no.-1 is recognized by the Government of West Bengal as well as Union Government. The institute is recognized by the University of Calcutta is it a one year diploma course to specifically train up to young graduates in Age Management and Management of Gerontology (senior citizens). Accordingly, the o.p-1 approached University of Calcutta for due recognition of the institute for running such a diploma course. University inspected infrastructure and gave approval for the one year diploma course on CMIG. Accordingly, in the year 2008 the said institute got recognition for running one year post graduate diploma course in Gerontology, in due course of time the University of Calcutta extended the said recognition till 2019 the mark sheets were issued to the students but successfully completed the course and the candidates never raised any question in respect of authenticity of the said post graduate diploma course. The complainant successfully completed post graduate diploma course, thereafter mark sheet was issued and the same was received by the complainant without any protest. After receiving the mark sheet along with the certificate the complainant started to insist for issuance of Bar Coded mark sheet and certificate and the o.p. nos.-1 and 2 apprised to the complainant that some time is required for preparation of Bar Coded mark sheet and after it is made ready the complainant will be provided with the same. Due to mistake while printing the Memo no. was not printed. The complainant thereafter started to make several phone calls and filed RTI and RTI was disposed of and thereafter an appeal was preferred which is also disposed of and thereafter second appeal has been preferred. It was further stated that the o.ps never claimed the affiliation from the University of Calcutta and the stated fact was informed to the complainant vide Letter dated 6.11.2015. The letter of University of Calcutta vide dated 20.3.2017 informed the complainant recognition of the institute was extended to 2018/19 and the o.ps accordingly, denied that the said course was not recognized by the University of Calcutta. Since there was no deficiency in service or there was any unfair trade practice in part of the o.ps, therefore, the o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case. The o.ps in support of the contention some files and documents wherefrom it is evident that the said institute was recognized by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and there was no malpractices on the part of the o.ps for which the o.ps appeal for the dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties the following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainant took admission in respect of the course conducted by the o.ps?
- Whether the course conducted by the o.ps. were not recognized by the University of Calcutta?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
- Whether complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that that complainant came across an advertisement in Sambad Pratidin that admission in one year Post Graduate Diploma Course in Gerontology and Age Management. The complainant also came to learn that the course was duly affiliated and recognized by the University of Calcutta and the course fee for the said one year post graduate diploma course was Rs.15,000/-, the complainant paid the said amount and took the admission. The curriculum consisting of nine subjects totaling to 600 marks, classes were conducted twice a week and after the end of the course the mark sheet and certificates are provided on perusal of the said mark sheet and certificate the complainant got suspicious regarding the authenticity of much claimed affiliation of the University of Kolkata, on the contrary the complainant noticed that the certificate did not bear the Memo No. which is usually given by the University of Calcutta upon granting affiliation to a particular course. The complainant after obtaining a photo copy of the mark sheet approached the students of the previous year batch and came to learn that mark sheets provided to the batches prior to 2015 had the Memo No. given of the proforma o.ps when the complainant got suspicious he filed an application under RTI to Calcutta University and wanted to know whether the said course is recognized or not. The University informed that the course was recognized but failed to provide any copy of reference issued by University of Calcutta. Thereafter an appeal was preferred and the appellant informed representative of o.ps-1 to mention Memo No. along with date, logo, roll no. and serial no. etc. on such certificate. The representative of CMIG agreed to the such proposal. After such hearing the complainant received a copy of the order and thereafter received the document and after going through the document he came to learn that CMIG granted the provisional affiliation for 5 years effective from 7.4.2008 to 7.4.2013 of the provisional affiliation was terminated on 6.4.2013. the complainant had taken admission in the said course CMIG on 30.10.2013 when the course was not affiliated and recognized by University of Calcutta. The complainant thereafter went to the Office of the o.ps-1 and wanted the old mark sheet of the complainant so that he can be provided a new mark sheet but the o.ps did not handover the same and complainant did not accept the same. On the basis of the said fact the o.ps failed to provide the new mark sheet. Against the said action of the Appellat Authority the complainant has preferred an appeal before the State Information Commission because of such act on the part of the o.pss the complainant has suffered and on the basis of the said fact complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and for unfair trade practice of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for litigation cost.
The Lawyer of the o.ps argued that they never claimed for affiliation from the University of Calcutta. The o.p.no.-1 is recognized by the Government of West Bengal as well as Union Government. The institute is recognized by the University of Calcutta is it a one year diploma course to specifically train up to young graduates in Age Management and Management of Gerontology (senior citizens). Accordingly, the o.p-1 approached University of Calcutta for due recognition of the institute for running such a diploma course. University inspected infrastructure and gave approval for the one year diploma course on CMIG. Accordingly, in the year 2008 the said institute got recognition for running one year post graduate diploma course in Gerontology, in due course of time the University of Calcutta extended the said recognition till 2019 the mark sheets were issued to the students but successfully completed the course and the candidates never raised any question in respect of authenticity of the said post graduate diploma course. The complainant successfully completed post graduate diploma course, thereafter mark sheet was issued and the same was received by the complainant without any protest. After receiving the mark sheet along with the certificate the complainant started to insist for issuance of Bar Coded mark sheet and certificate and the o.p. nos.-1 and 2 apprised to the complainant that some time is required for preparation of Bar Coded mark sheet and after it is made ready the complainant will be provided with the same. Due to mistake while printing the Memo no. was not printed. The complainant thereafter started to make several phone calls and filed RTI and RTI was disposed of and thereafter an appeal was preferred which is also disposed of and thereafter second appeal has been preferred. It was further stated that the o.ps never claimed the affiliation from the University of Calcutta and the stated fact was informed to the complainant vide Letter dated 6.11.2015. The letter of University of Calcutta vide dated 20.3.2017 informed the complainant recognition of the institute was extended to 2018/19 and the o.ps accordingly, denied that the said course was not recognized by the University of Calcutta. Since there was no deficiency in service or there was any unfair trade practice in part of the o.ps, therefore, the o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case. The o.ps in support of the contention some files and documents wherefrom it is evident that the said institute was recognized by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and there was no malpractices on the part of the o.ps for which the o.ps appeal for the dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an undisputed fact that the complainant took the admission for the course conducted by the o.ps. The complainant has categorically stated that in the advertisement it was stated that the said course was affiliated and recognized by University of Calcutta but the complainant has claimed that while the admission was taken by the complainant was not recognized by the University of Calcutta and after completion of the course while the certificate and mark sheet were issued date and memo number were not mentioned by which the University of Calcutta gave recognition to the said institute for conducting the said course. It appears from the materials on record that the o.ps applied for the recognition of the said course and the course was recognized by the University subsequently and the complainant was asked to submit the old mark sheet and he was asked to be provided with a new one with bearing the memo number as well as affiliation date but the complainant did not agree to the proposal made by the o.ps. and did not handover the old mark sheet for having the new one. After completion of the course the complainant thereafter filed an appeal on different For a and he came to learn that the said course was recognized for the period of 5 years effective from 7.4.2008 to 7.4.2013 and the complainant had taken admission in the said course in CMIG on 30.10.2013 when the course was no more affiliated and recognized by the University of Calcutta. It appears from the materials on record that the advertisement through which the complainant came to learn the existence of the said course through a newspaper advertisement dated 22.5.2012 but during the said time the course remained recognized by the University of Calcutta. Therefore, the allegation made by the complainant that the complainant was misled by the advertisement and when he took admission the University did not recognition the said course cannot be accepted. The complainant at the time of admission he ought to have clarified the said fact from the said institute i.e. CMIG but the complainant failed to make any query with regard to the recognition/affiliation of the University of Calcutta at the time of taking admission in the said course. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant when brought to the notice of the o.ps. regarding the recognition of University of Calcutta the o.ps. agreed to provide him with the mark sheet since during that period they got recognition from university for conducting the course by the o.ps, CMIG. It is also relevant to mention here that the course conducted by the o.ps CMIG has also been recognized by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Govt. of India and on successful completion of the course the mark sheet and certificate were provided and, therefore, it can not be said that there was any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the o.ps. Apart from the said fact the Ld. Lawyer for the o.ps. cited a judgment as reported in (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 483 whereby it was held that as per the Consumer Protection Act Sections 2(o) and 2(d)(ii) whether a statutory board conducting academic examination, a service provider and examinee a consumer under the act, held statutory board does not provide service in the sense the term is used in the act and examinee is not a consumer. Here in this case the o.ps is not a statutory body, therefore, we cannot rely on the said decision. Apart from the said fact, it appears from the material materials on record that when the admission was taken the said course was not recognized by the University of Calcutta and after the completion of the course the memo number and date was not mentioned in the mark sheet and the said fact was not disclosed to the complainant at the time of getting admission thereby we hold that that there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps but it cannot be said that there was any unfair trade practice on the part of the o.ps. The complainant will only be entitled to get principal amount paid by him.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case no.CC/177/2017 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.p. nos.-1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to refund of Rs.15,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.1.000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
