New Age Science College vs Arabinda Ghose

THESE revision petitions have been filed by New Age +2 Science College and others against 12 individuals, who were their former students. The respondents had filed individual complaints before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhubaneshwar. The complaints were allowed by the District Forum and the orders were appealed by the petitioners before the State Commission, Orissa.

THE impugned order passed by the State Commission on 27.8.2009 disposes of eleven appeals numbers FA/864 to 874/2007. Now, separate revision petitions have been filed in all the cases. Considering that all these petitions, together with RP No.4458/2009, are concerned with identical set of facts and arise out of a common impugned order, we deem it appropriate to take all these revision petitions for disposal together, through this common order.

THE petitioner college was established in 2003 and the first batch of students were admitted for the academic sessions of 2003-2005. Academic sessions 2006-07 commenced on 19.6.2006. The problem, which led to the present set of consumer complaints, arose on 3.9.2006, as a result of an alleged scuffle between the class IV staffs and the students. As the situation deteriorated, the management closed the college sine die on 6.9.2006. An FIR with the police was also lodged and the students were asked to vacate the hostel premises. The Directorate of Higher Education Govt. of Orissa intervened and on 19.9.2006 directed the college management to issue transfer certificate to those students who applied for it. Allegedly, these students had to get admission to other colleges in the midst of the academic sessions and therefore, filed consumer complaints to seek refund of the fees paid by them.

THE opposite parties in their joint written response before the District Forum, admitted that the complainants had paid fees as claimed by them. However, the allegation that an additional cash contribution of Rs.5,000/- was taken without receipt from each students, was stoutly denied by the OPs. The management also opposed the claim for refund of fees on the ground that transfer certificate had been issued on the specific request of individual students. The management was allegedly compelled by the situation of vandalism and assault on the staff members to close down the college sine die on 6.9.2006. However, the classes were recommenced from 23.9.2006. It was therefore contended that there was no case for refund of fees.

THE State Commission agreed that the fees should be refunded by the college, but held that award of compensation was not called for. The appeal was partly allowed, with the following observation- "What was the situation three at that time and whether it led to any law and order problem in the institution or not are not forthcoming. As such, whatever best the authorities thought at that moment, they have done. In most of the cases, as we have known such violent acts and disturbances are quelled by the authorities by closing the college and hostel for indefinite time. When the matter subsides, the college is reopened and notice of such reopening is published. In the instant case, we have after a thorough scrutiny of the materials on record and after going through the impugned judgment and order, found absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants (college authorities), either in the matter of closing the institution sine die or in the matter of issue of transfer certificates to the students or their guardians on their application. In that view of the matter, we find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of imposition/award of compensation and cost in favour of the complainants. However, the observations and order passed by the learned District Forum in the matter of refund of fees appears to us to be just and proper in the facts situation of the case, specifically when we find that huge amount of fees were deposited for the entire academic session but the complainants studied for only a few months."

WE have considered the records of the case together with evidence led before the fora below. We have also heard the learned counsel for the two parties. Only in RP No. 4447 of 2009, the respondent/complainant has been considered ex-parte, by this Commission.

FROM a perusal of the revision petition, as well as arguments of Mr. Shibashish Mishra, counsel for the revision petitioner, we find that the entire argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the State Commission has not found any deficiency on the part of the petitioner in dealing with the situation arising on 3.9.2006, leading to sine-die closure of the college on 6.9.2006 and its subsequent re-opining on 23.9.2006. It is for this reason that the State Commission has set aside the award of compensation by the District Forum. Carrying the argument further, the petitioner has contended that the order of refund should also have been set aside. It is argued that the concerned students, took the transfer certificates of their own volition, so as to prosecute their studies in other institutions. The transfer certificates were given without any delay. The question of refund should therefore not have arisen.

THIS contention is apparently the result of segmented reading of the order of the State Commission. The State Commission has set aside the order of compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and loss of studies, only in consideration of the fact that with the refund of the fee, these students are enabled to prosecute their studies in other institutions.

IT is not the case of the revision petitioner that any of the respondents/Complainants had sought transfer certificates or refunds before the problem arose in September 2009. On the direction of this Commission, the revision petitioner has filed an additional affidavit on 5.7.2012. Significantly, this affidavit shows that in addition to the Complainants there were another five students, who had taken transfer certificates in September, 2006, though they had not filed any consumer complaints. Thus, from the material placed on record by the revision petitioner, it becomes clear that all these cases of students having left the college are directly linked to the situation that had developed in September, 2006. It also needs to be noted that considering the situation, the Directorate of Higher Education had itself intervened and advised the college to issue transfer certificates to the students who sought them. We therefore, do not accept the contention of the revision petitioner that these students had left the college voluntarily to join other institutions.

IN the result, we find no substance in these revision petitions. The impugned order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which could justify our intervention under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition Nos. 4447 to 4458 of 2009 are consequently dismissed. No order as to costs.