Ajeet Pratap Singh vs INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

BOTH the aforesaid appeals are being decided by this common judgment as in both of them common questions of law and facts are involved and they have been preferred against the same order dated 25.9.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Chittorgarh in Case No. 152/2003. Appeal No. 2094/2003 Ajeet Pratap Singh v. Vice Chancellor, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi and Another.

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1986'') has been filed by the appellant -complainant against the respondents with the prayer that the order dated 25.9.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Chittorgarh to the extent of not awarding degree of three years M.B.A. Course to the appellant -complainant be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to award degree of three years M.B.A. Course to the appellant -complainant. It arises in the following circumstances: On 22.4.2003, the appellant -complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the District Forum, Chittorgarh alleging therein that he sought admission to Post Graduate Specialization Diploma in Operations Management (PGSDOM) as per the rules of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (for short ''the University'') prevailing in 1996. In the said complaint, it was further alleged by the appellant -complainant that thereafter, after completion of PGSDOM in 1998, he requested the respondent No. 2 Regional Director of the University to admit him to M.B.A. Course of three years, as per Direct Entry Scheme and he was allowed and he successfully completed three years Course of M.B.A. in October, 2001. The further case of the appellant -complainant was that he received mark -sheet of each examination held by the respondents -University from time to time and he also received final Grade Card. The further case of the appellant -complainant was that thereafter, he insisted for issuance of degree of three years M.B.A. Course, as according to him, he has passed all the examinations conducted by the respondent -University from time to time during three years and, therefore, he was entitled to degree of three years M.B.A. Course. The further case of the appellant -complainant was that since he was allowed by the respondents to pursue his study as student of MBA during all three years and since he has paid regular fees and since he has successfully completed 21 papers of the course of M.B.A., therefore, he was entitled to get degree of three years M.B.A. Course and non -granting of degree of three years M.B.A. Course to the appellant -complainant by the respondents -University amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents -University. Hence, this complaint. A reply was filed by the respondents -University and their case was that no doubt the appellant -complainant was admitted in three years M.B.A. Course by the respondents -University and he has successfully completed the said M.B.A. course of three years, but he was informed through communication dated 13.12.2001 that since he has not cleared the mandatory Entrance Test for admission to M.B.A. Course, therefore, for that, lacuna, he was not entitled to the degree of M.B.A. Course without first clearing Entrance Test. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the appellant -complainant be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum through impugned order dated 25.9.2003 partly allowed the complaint of the appellant -complainant in the manner that looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant -complainant was entitled to compensation and thus, he was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000, but his prayer for award of degree of three years M.B.A. Course was rejected. Aggrieved from the said order of the learned District Forum, Chittorgarh dated 25.9.2003 to the extent of not awarding degree of three years M.B.A. course to the complainant -appellant, this appeal has been filed by the appellant -complainant.

IN this appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant -complainant is that since the appellant -complainant was not only allowed by the respondents -University to pursue study as M.B.A. student for all three years, but he has successfully passed three years Course of M.B.A. and for that, mark sheet of each examination was made available to him by the respondents -University, therefore, if by technical mistake, which was on the part of the respondents -University, he was given admission wrongly, all the same, for that mistake, the appellant -complainant would not suffer and, therefore, relief of awarding of degree of three years MBA Course to the complainant -appellant by the respondents -University should have been given by the learned District Forum and by not doing so, the learned District Forum has committed serious illegality. He has further submitted that when the learned District Forum has come to the conclusion that the appellant -complainant was entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000 meaning thereby, the learned District Forum has come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents -University and when this being the position, the impugned order of the learned District Forum dated 25.9.2003 to the extent of not awarding degree of three years MBA Course to the appellant -complainant is wholly illegal and erroneous one and thus, the same cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside.

ON the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents -University that for admission to the M.B.A. Course, Entrance Test was mandatory, but the appellant -complainant has not cleared that Entrance Test and he was wrongly given admission to the M.B.A. Course directly by the respondents -University ignoring Entrance Test, and, therefore, since the appellant -complainant has not cleared mandatory Entrance Test, he was not entitled to degree of three years M.B.A. Course, though he might have passed all the examination of M.B.A. Course conducted by the respondents University from time to time during all three years. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant -complainant as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents -University and gone through the entire record of this case.

THERE is no dispute on the point that the appellant -complainant was given admission to the M.B.A. Course of three years by the respondents -University and he was allowed to pursue his study during all the three years and he passed all the examinations of MBA Course conducted by the respondents -University from time to time during three years and for that, he was made available mark -sheets and final grade card by the respondents -University.

THERE can also be no dispute on the point that for technical reason, as pleaded by the respondents -University that Entrance Test might have been there, but in the present case, that was not followed and the appellant -complainant was wrongly given admission directly to M.B.A. Course by the respondents University ignoring Entrance Test, the degree of three years M.B.A. Course was not given by the respondents -University to the appellant -complainant, though he has passed all the examinations of M.B.A. Course conducted by the respondents -University from time to time during three years. There is also no duspute on the point that when the admissionn to M.B.A. Course was given to the complainant -appellant by the respondents -University, the appellant -complainant had not in any manner suppressed or concealsed any material facts and if there was any fault in giving admission to the appellant -complainant to M.B.A. Course, it was on the part of the respondents -University.

THE question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just narrated above, the findings of the learned District Forum, Chittorgarh by which the appellant -complainant was not awarded the degree of three years MBA Course can be justified or not.

IT may be stated here that imparting of education by an Educational Institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ''service'' as defined 1(o) under the Act of 1986 and the students admitted for being imparted education for consideration could claim themselves to be consumers of the services of education, as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act of 1986 and in this respect, the decision of the National Commission in Bhupesh Khurana & Others v. Vishwa Buddha Parishad & Others., II (2001) CPJ 74 (NC)=2000 CTJ 801 (CP) (NCDRC) may be referred to. If any Educational Institution admits students in violation of rules and regulations and thereafter, allows such students to pursue their studies in the course for which they were given admission and further, when they clear all papers and pass examinations, in such a situation, if on the grouund of some technicalities and niceties, degrees are not given to those students, in our considered opinion, it would certainly amount to deficiency in service on the part of that Educational Institution.

IN Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat and Another v. Secretary, Sharda Bhavan Educational Society and Others, II (1994) CPJ 15 (NC)=(1994) II CPR 283 (NCDRC), where students were admitted in violation of the rules and regulations and consequently, the students suffered considerable delay in obtaining registration after passing the examination and undergoing the practical training and, in such a situation, the National Commission held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the educational authorities.

THUS , it can be concluded that if any student is given admission wrongly to any course violating rules and regulations and he is allowed to study that course and if he successfully completes that course, then depriving of fruits of that course would certainly amount to deficiency in service on the part of the Educational Institution, as imparting of education by an Educational Institution for consideration falls within the ambit of ''service'' as defined under the Act of 1986. Since in the present case, the appellant was given admission to M.B.A. Course by the respondents University and he was allowed to pursue his study for all three years and he successfully passed all the examinations of M.B.A. Course conducted by the respondents -University from time to time during all three years and for that, he was made available mark -sheets and final grade card by the respondents -University, therefore, in these circumstances, after successfully completion of three years Course of M.B.A., if he was deprived of degree of M.B.A. Course by the respondents University merely on technical ground that he was wrongly given admission by the respondents -University ignoring the Entrance Test, in our considered opinion, it would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents -University. Hence, the appellant -complainant was entitled to degree of M.B.A. Course and the learned District Forum has committed serious illegality in not awarding degree of M.B.A. Course to the appellant -complainant.

IN Sreedharan Nair, N. v. Registrar, University of Kerala, I (2004) CPJ 27 (NC)=2002 NCJ 28 (NC), it has been held by the National Commission that refusal to give provisional degree certificate after passing all examinations prescribed for a degree on the ground of not being eligible for taking admission three years ago, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the University.

THE controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the National Commission in the case of Sreedharan Nair, N (supra). Furthermore, even if the case of the respondents -University is accepted that the appellant -complainant was given admission wrongly by them as he has not passed entrance test, but the fact is that he has successfully completed three years Course of M.B.A. and when this being the position, if there is a refusal on the part of the respondents University to award degree of MBA Course to the appellant -complainant, it would amount to deficiency in service. Apart from this, since the admission was given by the respondents -University and the appellant -complainant had not suppressed or concealed any material facts in any manner, therefore, if there was any fault on the part of the respondents -University, for that, the appellant -complainant should not suffer. Had there would have been a case of suppression or concealment of any material facts on the part of the complainant -appellant, the position would have been different one. It is also not the case of the respondents -University that the appellant -complainant has secured admission by playing fraud or misrepresentation of facts.

FOR the reasons stated above, it is held that refusal to award degree of M.B.A. Course to the appellant -complainant after successfully passing of all the examinations conducted by the respondents University from time to time during three years on the ground that he was wrongly given admission by the respondents -University ignoring entrance test, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents -University and thus, the appellant -complainant is entitled to degree of three years M.B.A. Course and the findings of the learned District Forum refusing to award degree of MBA Course to the appellant -complainant cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed.

SO far as the ruling relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents -University in General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Mauli Chand Sharma, II (1995) CPJ 183 (NC) is concerned, it has no application to the facts of the present case and, therefore, that ruling would not be helpful to the learned Counsel for the respondents -University. Accordingly, this Appeal filed by the appellant -complainant is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.9.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Chittorgarh to the extent of refusing to award degree of three years M.B.A. Course to the appellant -complainant is quashed and set aside and the respondents -University are directed to award degree of three years M.B.A. Course to the appellant -complainant within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that the order of the learned District Forum, Chittorgarh dated 25.9.2003 to the extent of awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000 to the appellant -complainant is maintained. Appeal No. 2263/2003 Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi through its Vice -Chancellor and Another v. Ajeet Pratap Singh. This appeal has been filed by the non -complainants -University against the order of the learned District Forum, Chittorgarh dated 25.9.2003 granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant.

SINCE while deciding the above appeal No. 2094/2003, this State Commission has come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the University -non -complainants and also maintained the order of the learned District Forum, Chittorgarh dated 25.9.2003 granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Apart from this, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum to the tune of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant appears to be just, reasonable and proper and it cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive, especially when the National Commission in the case of Sreedharan Nair, N (supra) has awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the appellant of that case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants -non -complainants -University is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.