SEEMA vs ROHIN SACHDEVA

-THIS appeal is filed by Miss Seema - complainant against the order dated 16. 7. 2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short ''the District Forum'') by which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed in the following terms: "7. Thus once the complainant claimed the relief of compensation and other amounts in the shape of Rs. 25,000 per annum in the Writ Petition before Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and failed, she cannot be allowed to claim the same relief later on in this Forum. The complaint in that respect is not maintainable. The same is liable to be dismissed.

No other point is urged before us.

In view of our discussion and findings above, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the file be consigned to record room after compliance. "

BRIEF facts of the complaint are that complainant took the admission by paying a fee and other charges of Rs. 1,01,200 in BAMS degree course in the year 1996-97 in respondent No. 2-College. The College Administration through advertisement and prospectus stated that they had been recognized by Govt. of Punjab and approved by Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi (for short ''the CCIM'' ). Later on, it was detected that the college was provisionally recognized by the CCIM and permitted to admit the students for the academic years 1996-97 and 1997-98, subject to grant of affiliation by Panjab University, within whose jurisdiction it then fell but the Panjab University did not grant any affiliation to the college as they did not possess the required infrastructure for running the BAMS course study. The exams of complainant along with other students were not conducted till, 1999 and the students filed writ petition in the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the same was decided as compromised on 21. 12. 2000 and Baba Farid University, in whose jurisdiction the college at that time was directed to hold special Counselling for admitting these students in academic sessions of 1996-97 and 1997-98 of other recognized medical institutions under it. It was stated that the order of the Hon''ble High Court was passed to accommodate the students of the college admitted during disputed session and the complainant had to take fresh admission in BAMS course and wasted her four years, admission fee and other dues of Rs. 1,01,200. It was prayed that since the OPs are deficient in service, therefore, they be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,01,200 and Rs. 2 lac as compensation along with 18% per annum interest. On notice, O. P. No. 2 was proceeded ex parte and OP. No. 1 filed reply in which admission and enrolment of the complainant along with fee and other charges in the college was admitted in BAMS degree course for the academic session 1996-97 but denied the fact that college was not recognized by the Punjab Government or affiliated with the CCIM. It was stated that education was duly imparted to the students upto their satisfaction and denied the fact of deficiency in service. The fact of admission of the students (including complainant) enrolled during the academic sessions 1996-97 and 1997-98 in other medical colleges recognized by Baba Farid University was admitted. It was further submitted that in the writ petition complainant had made similar allegations and demanded compensation of Rs. 25,000 per year but the said writ petition was decided on 21. 12. 2000 as compromised and no compensation was allowed so the present complaint is not maintainable. Another plea regarding limitation was also taken and OP No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Learned District Forum considered the matter and dismissed the complaint.

HENCE, this appeal by the complainant. The point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the respondents were committed a fraud and were deficient in service?

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the order passed by the learned District Forum. This Commission has decided some original complaints (one of them is ''original Complaint No. 67 of 2001'' titled as "bhupinder Pal Singh Gill v. Lala Lajpat Rai Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital", decided on 30. 5. 2003) on the same point which was also related to the same college and the same question is involved for consideration in this case. In this case, it is proved that CCIM had granted provisional recognition and permitted the college to admit students in the academic sessions 1996-97 and 1997-98, subject to the condition that the college must get affiliation from Panjab University, in whose jurisdiction it then fell but the College vide advertisement and prospectus mentioned that the college is approved by CCIM. New Delhi but not mentioned that it was ''provisionally recognised'' by CCIM with the condition that college being granted affiliation by the Panjab University which was not granted to the college by the Panjab University on account of these lapses: " (a)lack of its own building for the students and staff; (b)lack of his own hospital; (c)lack of boys hostel; (d)no proper library; (e)no proper herbal garden; (f)no common hall, play grounds or proper lecture theatre. "

It is clear that the recognition to the college was not granted due to ''non-possessing the necessary infrastructure and other facilities for running the BAMS course''. It is also proved that the permission which was granted, was only the ''conditional permission'' and the college has failed to fulfil these conditions. By this act, the respondents had committed a fraud with the students (appellant) as on believing the advertisement/prospectus of the College, complainants got admission in the college and lost their valuable period of study as the period spent by them has not given any successful result and by his conduct, college misled the students, which amounts to unfair trade practice.

NEXT point for consideration is that the students represented the Deputy Commissioner, Moga for inquiry and the Deputy Commissioner, Moga appointed Addl. D. C. , Moga as Inquiry Officer. In his report, Inquiry Officer has held that: ". . . . opposite parties were guilty of misrepresentation, fraud that they were playing with the future of the students. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the NOC dated 9. 7. 1996 granted to the college by the Government of Punjab for opening the college was a conditional one subject to the conditions related to staff, management and facilities to be fulfilled during certain period. The Inquiry Officer found that the permission for admitting the students for 1996-97 session was conditional one and the conditions were conveyed to college by Government of Punjab vide its letter dated 29. 10. 1996, the number of the students permitted to be admitted was over-written and illegible. It was further held that the permission to admit the students for the year 1997-98 was also conditional one and the college was asked to have the recognition of a University prior to admitting the students for the year 1997-98, but the opposite parties started the 1997-98 course without getting the requisite affiliation. It was further found by the Inquiry Officer that the CCIM had declined permission to the opposite parties to admit the students for the year 1998-99. . . . . . . . "

THE main point for consideration is that whether the amount deposited by the complainant with the said college is refundable to him or not? It was admitted by the respondents that appellant has paid fee and other charges amounting to Rs. 1,01,200 and it is clear that the college mis-represented the students with regard to the recognition and affiliation and due to non-availability of these documents, college is unable to conduct exams, of B. A. M. S. and for this reason, the Hon''ble High Court has directed to hold special Counselling for these students and allocate them other colleges recognized for B. A. M. S. course and for this purpose the students has paid another fee and charges and the earlier fee deposited by the appellant and other students was not adjusted. It is clear from reading the order that the directions issued by the Hon''ble High Court are with regard to the arrangement of admission of these students and not regarding the earlier amount deposited with the College. So by misrepresenting the students for admission in B. A. M. S. course, definitely amounts to unfair trade practice and the respondents are liable to refund the amount deposited by the appellant as fee with interest. Another point raised by the respondent is with regard to the limitation. As the order of the Hon''ble High Court came in the end of year, 2000 and the appellant and other students were granted relief regarding their dispute in the year, 2000 and the question regarding fee deposited with the college is different so the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant in the District Forum is within limitation.

In view of the observations made above, the respondents are found deficient in service. We, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the District Forum. We direct the respondents to pay the amount deposited by the appellant i. e. Rs. 1,01,200 with 12% per annum interest from the date of deposit till realization. The respondents are further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellant for loss of her valuable four years of study of BAMS course and causing mental agony and harassment. Compliance of this order shall be made by the respondents within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

THE arguments in this case were heard on 6. 2. 2008 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of heavy pendency and non-availability of the requisite Benches and infrastructure in the State Commission, for which the State Government has already been requested. Appeal allowed.