Students win
case against edu institute
Anand Institute of International
Studies had advertised its courses for foreign degrees with employment
guarantee.
Students who took admission found
that there was no infrastructure, no competent teacher, and no library. Nothing
was taught except English. On raising a grievance, they were assured that these
deficiencies would be removed. Meanwhile, in addition to the registration
deposit of Rs10,000, two drafts of 850 Australian dollars and Rs40,000 were
collected from each student. Around 10 days later, each of the students was
asked to pay a further Rs7,200 and bear their own travel expense to Delhi for
the AILS exam which would qualify them to study in Australia. Even though they
appeared twice, they failed to get the required points. The students sought a
refund, but the institute refused and closed down its operations in June 2009.
After getting a legal notice issued, four students Sani Jaggi, Mandeep Singh,
Manpreet Singh and Sandeep Soni filed a complaint against the institute through
its proprietor Arun Pal Anand.
The institute contested the case and
sought its dismissal. It stated it had proper infrastructure and qualified
teachers. It denied giving any job guarantee, and blamed the students for not
paying the entire course fees. It stated passing an exam and securing a job
depended on the ability of each student for which the institute could not be
held liable.
The Forum observed the institute did
not have any recognition from the Government of India or the University Grants
Commission or from any other competent authority.
Relying on the Supreme Court
judgement in Buddhist Mission Dental College v/s Bhupesh Khurana, the forum
held that running the institution without affiliation or permission constituted
an unfair trade practice detrimental to consumer interest.
The Forum ordered a refund of the
entire amount together with 8% interest. In addition, Rs5,000 was awarded as
compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade, and a further Rs500
toward litigation costs.
The institute challenged this order,
but did not bother to appeal, so the Madhya Pradesh State Commission dismissed
its appeal. The institute then filed a revision.
In its order of July 1, 2019
delivered by Dinesh Singh for the Bench along with Dr SM Kantikar, the National
Commission observed that revision was not maintainable as there was no
illegality in the orders which had been passed. It indicted the institute for
pitting its might against the students by dragging on with the litigation, and
dismissed the revision with exemplary costs of Rs 1 lakh payable to the
Consumer Welfare Fund of the District Forum.
Source
| Times of India | 8th July 2019
Regards
Mr.
Pralhad Jadhav
Master
of Library & Information Science (NET Qualified)
Research
Scholar (IGNOU)
Senior
Manager @ Knowledge Repository
Khaitan
& Co
Twitter
Handle | @Pralhad161978
Mobile @ 9665911593
No comments:
Post a Comment