Surinder Miglani and Anr. vs Pawan Kumar and Ors.

THE revision petitioners were arraigned as OP Nos. 1 and 2 in the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Kaithal. The complaint was allowed against the two revision petitioners. Their appeal has been dismissed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 625 of 2007. Now, the complainant, Shri Pawan Kumar and NIIT who were OP -3 and OP -4 before the District Forum, are arrayed as respondents in the revision petition. Before the District Forum, the case of the complainant was - - 3. That the complainant has passed his 10+2 examination in the year 1998 and applied for admission in the year 2000 in PNC at NIIT Centre, Kaithal and the complainant was admitted for the aforesaid course. Photo copy of admission slip, etc. are attached herewith.

That as per the syllabus of the course there was four stages/sem i.e. ABCD to complete the PNC Diploma. It is worth mention to that the complainant was given admission in sem E of CWC on this assurance that would be considered to be equal to sem D of the above said Diploma/WCC of PNC.

That after completion of all these sems except sem C the respondent declined to admit the complainant in sem C without disclosing any reason to the complainant Without completion of sem C there is no use of Diploma. The respondent refused to admit the complainant for sem C without any justifiable ground and rendered deficiency in service on their part.

For better appreciation of his complaint, we may refer to the following clarification given by the NIIT before the Fora below:

This to certify that a student of NIIT who completes semester ''E'', ''A'' and ''B'', is awarded certificate of advanced diploma in network centered computing (ANC). Any student who finishes 4 semesters (Sem E, Sem A, Sem B, Sem C) of GNQ curriculum is entitled for certificate of professional diploma in network centered computing (PNC).

Thus, the case of the Complainant was that denial of opportunity to undergo Sem ''C'' resulted in his being denied the opportunity to acquire NIIT Professional diploma in Network centred Computing (PNC).

THE District Forum has considered the matter at great length and held that: It is strange enough that initially admission was given in Sem ''E'' of CWC. For that all the students were assured that Sem ''E'' will be considered as equal to the Sem V of the said diploma. The respondent No. 2 has admitted that at that time they were having course only for Sem ''E'' and for the course of Semesters A and B later on an agreement was reached with the respondent No. 4. Sem ''E'' was got completed in one year instead of 26 weeks. For the admission of up -gradation and migration from Sem ''E'' to Sem ''A'' the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 charged huge amount from the complainant Sem ''A'' and Sem ''B'' were also got completed in one year and 13 months respectively. ................... The students and complainant were never disclosed about authorization of course and diploma. Initially admission in Sem ''E'' was basically wrong that Sem ''E'' was last, whereas complainant was given admission in Sem ''E''. On the day of admission, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no authorization of Sem ''A'' and ''B''. If there would have not been any agreement between respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, then what would have happened. What would have been fate of the students and their fees charged. Sem ''E'' was easiest course, whereas Sem V was tough course. How both can be equal. Even otherwise, if respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not authorised for the Sem ''C'' course, why admissions were given for the PNC Diploma. Learned Counsel for the complainant has placed on file all the relevant receipts of payment to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. We have perused the receipt date 29.8.2000 for an amount of Rs. 5,000 on account of admission fees. This is first receipt issued on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In this receipt, there is a column of as on account of. In this column, the respondents have written only ''Admission''. If there was no mala fide intention, why the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not mentioned specifically amount charged on account of admission in diploma of this and that. What prevented them to do so. There is no explanation on their part. Basically foundation of this course was based on fraud and mala fide which amounts to unfair trade practice.

Before the District Forum, OP -2 (OP -1 was ex parte) had taken a stand that the complainant took admission to semesters/Course E, A and B knowing that OP -2 had no right to run semester C. This contention was squarely rejected by the District Forum. In the appeal, a similar contention was raised before the State Commission and was categorically rejected. The award of the District Forum was confirmed and the appeal of OP -1, OP -2/RPs was dismissed.

WE have carefully perused the records submitted on behalf of the revision petitioners and have heard Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate at length on their behalf. Learned Counsel drew our attention to the advertisement issued by the revision petitioners, inviting registrations to various NIIT programme in computing w.e.f. 11.8.2000. The advertisement was in the name of NIIT Centre, Kaithal and mentioned Mr. Surendra Miglani as its Director. Learned Counsel argued that the Complainant has registered for the course in Advanced Certificate in PC Applications. His attention was drawn to the clear finding of the Fora below that the Complainant was allowed to complete Semesters E, A and B without being informed, at any stage, that the centre was not authorised to conduct Semester C. He could not point to any evidence which was led before the Fora below and which could show that the complainant was informed about non -availability of the crucial Semester C, before he cleared Semester E, A and B.

IT is also contended that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal without assigning any reason. We do not agree. The State Commission has fully considered the evidence on record in reaching the decision to concur with the District Forum. A meaningless attempt has also been made in the revision petition to side -step the main issue by claiming that the complainant had sought admission to Semester -E only, as in the year 2000 the centre was granted permission by NIIT to run Semester E only. This contention is nothing more than a dishonest attempt to play with words. It cannot answer the fact that over the next three and half years the same centre allowed the Complainant to complete Semester A and B as well. It also does not explain the basis for the claim of the revision petitioner that the Complainant had enrolled only for the ANC course not for PNC, as in August, 2010 the revision petitioner could not have given admission to either. We, therefore, find considerable substance in the finding of the fora below that the foundation of the case of the revision petitioner lies in fraud, mala fides and unfair trade practice. In the result, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is without any merits and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs.