ITAndT Learning Solutions Ltd. vs Gaurav Malik

IT & T Learning Solutions Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as Petitioners) have filed this Revision Petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh which rejected their appeal in favour of Sh. Gaurav Malik(hereinafter referred to as Respondent). Respondent who was complainant before the District Forum has stated that he took admission in a programme being offered by the Petitioner under the name of IT & T Learning Solutions because it claimed to be affiliated with the prestigious MBA programme in France and also accredited to the Association of MBA (leading accreditation organization of Europe.) He paid an amount of Rs. 2,23,600/- before the commencement of the programme against the total course fee of Rs. 3,65,000/- for a period of two years. On attending the programme on the first day Respondent was shocked to note that only about 60 students attended the programme and the course contents of the programme as well as the other arrangements pertaining to class rooms library facilities etc. were inadequate and ill-equipped. In view of these facts the Respondent vide application dated 08.10.2002 applied for deferment for personal reasons. Soon thereafter the Petitioner filled the seat of the applicant with another student and withheld the entire amount paid by the Respondent. Respondent further contended that he came to know that the course being offered is not recognized by AMBA and only ENPC MBA Paris is recognized by AMBA. The present programme is also not recognised in India. Unfortunately, these facts came to light later because in the advertisement and prospectus issued by the Petitioner in respect of this Course the fact of non-recognition of the course in India was stated in very small and insignificant letters at the bottom of the advertisement and was thus overlooked. Respondent further contended that the Petitioner had given wrong information in the advertisement stating that it was among the top 100 institutions worldwide and was offering internationally recognised degrees with pay packages up to Rs. 8 lakhs. The applicant thereafter sent a legal notice to the Petitioners asking them to refund the amount of money deposited by him and on their refusal to do so he filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service with the prayer that the Petitioner be directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 2,23,600/- paid by the Respondent with 18% interest from the date of the receipt of the above payment by the Petitioners along-with costs and any other relief which the District Forum may deem fit and proper.

PETITIONERS denied the above contentions of the Respondent and stated that the Respondent attended classes for only one subject in the month of September and as a result had an attendance record of only 20% as opposed to the mandatory requirement of 80%. Further no facts were hidden from the Respondent and the brochure as well as the advertisement clearly stated that it is only the ENPC MBA Course, Paris which was accredited to AMBA and also that this programme is not recognised by AICTE or other relevant authorities in India. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent had got some other job abroad and, therefore, he got his admission deferred. In fact deferring of seats is usually not permitted but as a special case this was agreed with certain conditions like enhanced fees. It is, therefore, not correct that a false claim was made by the Petitioner regarding the institute and course or that Respondent was left in the lurch. In fact the Respondent preferred a lucrative job over a good academic programme. The District Forum after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record accepted the complaint by observing as follows:- In this case thus, the Forum is of the clear view that on the part of Opposite Party the complainant is not only kept under misconception but the conduct of Opposite Party by taking huge amount and awarding of the unrecognized degree is improper and unlawful. According to the Forum, the Opposite Party should not only refund the amount deposited by the complainant but also pay proper interest thereon so that the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant which he has suffered may be made up to certain extent. It is justified that the complainant must get the suit cost borne by him from the Opposite Party.

The District Forum directed that the Petitioners to jointly and severally pay the complainant within one month an amount of Rs. 2,23,600/- deposited by him with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit to the date of payment alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as costs and in case Petitioners fail to pay the said amount within the period laid down, rate of interest @ 8% would be payable by them. Aggrieved by this order Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which rejected their appeal. The relevant part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows:- .. the attempt of the appellant to cover up the closure of the so called institution cannot be attributed to anything other than the failure to comply with the necessary requirements of All India Council for Technical Education. Having examined the documents filed by the appellant before the District Forum as filed through the various affidavits here in this appeal, the conclusion is irresistible that there was total deficiency in service on the part of the appellant inasmuch as the advertisement was a conceatful, voluntarily action of the appellants to fleecing money from young ambitious meritorious students whose parents part with huge amount to make their progeny more successful in life.

COMING now to the other arguments on behalf of the complainant that the letter of deferment was a compulsive step in order that the money paid by the complainant is secured and obtained by persuasion without going for other legal means, it may be pointed out that once the appellants have admitted another student in place of the complainant and have taken the same money from him as from the complainant, there cannot be any principle involved in refusing the relief to the complainant to get back the money from the appellants. There is absolutely no justification for the appellants to deny the refund of the deposited amount. Since admittedly the complainant had gone to the institution only for a few days, he is entitled to refund of the entire amount. In this connection, it should be noted that various allegations have been made by the complainant about the abject deficiency of service in the teaching in class room and other benefits which should have been extended to the students. The State Commission while upholding the rest of the order of the District Forum increased the costs to the Respondent from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent in person made oral submissions. According to the Counsel for the Petitioner the fora below failed to appreciate that there was an agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent and all facts about the course were clearly stated in the advertisement and the prospectus including the fact that the course was not recognised in India. Moreover it was also wrong of the fora below to conclude that this was not a genuine and bonafide programme. In fact the Embassy of France itself had notified that the ENPC programme in India was being conducted through its partner Global Business School, New Delhi and a certificate would be given on completion of the course. The fora below also failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondent had only 20% attendance and proceeded to make derogatory remarks about the facilities provided by the institution because he wanted to opt out of the programme and take up a lucrative job. Under the circumstances there was no question of duping the Respondent with any false claims. The Respondent on the other hand while reiterating the submissions made before the Fora below stated that the fora below on the basis of credible evidence filed before it had rightly concluded that the entire programme had made tall and false claims which were not borne out by actual facts and the entire conduct of this institution was thus suspicious. Their activities were illegal and they indulged in unfair trade practice. It was because of this that the course had eventually to be closed down in India.

WE have heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent at length and carefully considered the evidence on the file. It is not disputed that the Respondent joined this Course and that the Petitioner took fees for two years right at the beginning. The Constitutional Bench of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 350 of 1993 in the case of Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. decided on 14.08.2033 had inter alia ruled as follows:- It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year, if an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank. As and when fees fall due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall due. At the end of the course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance. In view of this judgement of the Honble Supreme Court the Petitioners were wrong in demanding fees ab initio for the entire two academic years. It is not in dispute that soon after the Respondent left the course his seat was filled up by the Petitioners by taking another student in his place. Therefore, on these grounds alone the Petitioners should have refunded the fees of the Respondent. Apart from this there are also allegations of unfair trade practice against the Petitioners by making false claims and thus duping students. In this connection we have gone through the advertisement of the Petitioner as well as its prospectus in which claims have indeed been made which are not borne out by facts namely that it offers an internationally recognised degree, this course/degree is in fact not recognised either in France or in India. Its advertisement also states that applicants would be given a pay package of Rs. 8 lakhs per annum which appears to be suspect. Its claim that it is among the top 100 MBAs worldwide and 7th in India also lacks total credibility in the face of the fact that this institution is not even recognised internationally. In fact, it is the ENPC MBA Paris which may have been given such a rating but certainly not this institution. It is also a fact that it has been mentioned in very small and hardly decipherable letters that the course is not recognised in India. These sort of activities/actions cast very serious doubts on the credentials of the Petitioner institution. It is because of the spurt of such institutions in India that AICTE had to issue an advertisement to caution the general public. It may be relevant to quote this advisory since it is fully relevant in respect of the Petitioners institute/course:- The recent spurt of educational activities being carried out by the foreign universities/institutions imparting technical education in India has been of great concern to the Council as these activities have had no prior approval of AICTE. The technical programmes offered by the foreign university/institution in India have no recognition of AICTE, the Statutory Body responsible to regulate technical education system in the country at all levels. Keeping in view the interest of large sections of the students and their parents who are being misled by such institutions/educational service providers through their marketing campaign, the AICTE has decided to stop such activities in the country forthwith and at the same time systematize such operations in India by way of appropriate Regulations. As a consequence of the above decision of AICTE this institution had to close down in India.

KEEPING in view these facts and the ruling of the Supreme Court cited earlier we uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the revision petition. The Petitioners are directed to pay Respondent a sum of Rs. 2,23,600/- along-with interest @ 6% p.a. and Rs. 5,000/- as costs.