1. These revision petitions arise out of single order of State Commission; hence, decided by common order.
2. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the Odhisa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 109 to 113 of 2011 - Sri Rashmikanta Mishra & Ors. Vs. Sambalpur University & Ors. by which, while allowing appeals, order of District forum dismissing complaints was set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that OP-3/Petitioner No. 3 Principal, Rourkela Law College, Rourkela made an advertisement in the Oriya Daily "Sambad" dated 4.7.2006 under the endorsement of the OP No. 2/Petitioner No. 2 Director, Directorate of Distance and Continuing Education, Sambalpur University at Burla, Sambalpur inviting students, who had passed +2 examination for admission into 5 years Integrated B.A. LL.B. (Hons) Course. It was found from the prospectus that the said course would enable the students for a deep study of law like other professional academic courses for improvement of legal education as envisaged by Bar Council of India. Being allured, the complainants took admission in the said course, paid tuition fees of Rs.30,000/- for the academic year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 besides other fees. As per the Advocates Act approval of Bar Council of India is required to run the Law College. But no step was taken by the Petitioner for obtaining such approval. No examination was also conducted. So, the complainant and the guardian of other students, who had taken admission filed W.P. (C ) No. 7914 of 2008 before the Hon''ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, wherein the Hon''ble Court passed the following order:
"It, therefore, transpires that the petitioners have no subsisting right on the basis of
which they can claim any order or issuance of writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, in the event, they have been prejudiced in the
manner or have sustained any loss which can be computed in terms of money, it is
open for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum claiming for
damages/compensation against the University, if so advised.
As there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant and other students
similarly situated lost two valuable years of their academic career besides sustaining financial loss
and undergoing mental agony. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainants filed
separate complaints before District forum. OP No. 1 & 2 resisted complaint and submitted that
there was no Law College imparting 5 years Integrated B.A.L.L.B. (Hons) course, so, there was
repeated demand by the people of Western Orissa for opening and imparting 5 years Integrated
Law course. In the year 2006, in a meeting of the Syndicate of Sambalpur University, it was
resolved to open a 5 years Integrated B.A.L.L.B. (Hons) course to facilitate the intending students
of Western Orissa to prosecute their study in Law. The Principal, Rourkela Law College of 3
years Law course was requested to give necessary accommodation for running of the said course.
Due to his active cooperation, the Integrated Law course was opened for the session 2006-2007 to
run in Rourkela Law College. OP No. 2 & 3 were under reasonable expectation of getting
approval of the said College from the Bar Council of India. The University took a decision that
the administration of day to day affairs of opening and running of the aforesaid course would be
entrusted to an independent cell, i.e., Directorate of Distance and Continuing Education which
though a separate Cell is under the administrative control of the University. An advertisement was
published inviting applications from the eligible intending candidates for taking admission in the
5 years Integrated B.A.L.L.B. (Hons) course under the endorsement of respondent nos. 2 & 3. In
the beginning there was poor response from the students to the advertisement and therefore, the
proposal for moving the Bar Council of India was delayed. Only 8 candidates took admission out
of whom one took C.L.C. and only the rest 7 continued their study. Since for the first time, the
course was started, the method of conducting the examination could not be finalized. In the
meantime, academic session 2006-2007 was over and the complainant took admission to the 2 nd
year of the course. On 21.8.2007, the University wrote to the Bar Council of India for according
approval of the 5 years Integrated B.A.L.L.B. (Hons.) course. In the meantime, as per the
decision of the Syndicate, notification for conducting the examination of 1 st year integrated
course was issued on 28.2.2008 and the date was fixed for holding the examination to 23.3.2008,
but none of the students appeared in the examination, and on the other hand all of them took their
C.L.Cs, so there was no fault of any sort on the part of OP No. 1 & 2 and prayed to dismiss the
complaint. OP No. 3 in his written version stated that the publications of advertisement inviting
applications for admission from the eligible students to 5 years Integrated Law course was made
on behalf of the Sambalpur University as per the instruction of respondent - OP No. 2. Since he
acted as per the direction of OP Nos. 1 & 2, the Consumer Complaint should be dismissed against
him. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties observed that complainants are
consumer, but referred the matter to Civil Court for adjudication of damages. Appeals filed by
complainants were allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which,
these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners are ready to refund fees taken from complainants, but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing compensation; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be modified. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petitions be dismissed.
6. As there is delay of 40 to 58 days in filing revision petitions on account of discussion at level of various authorities and seeking approval for filing revision petitions, I deem it appropriate to condone delay for the reasons mentioned in the application and delay stands condoned.
7. As far deficiency of service on the part of petitioners, learned Counsel for the petitioners do not challenge deficiency to the extent of refunding fees to the complainants. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner while submitted arguments on the point of compensation placed reliance on judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court - (2010) 12 SCC 215 - Controller, Vinayak Mission Dental College and Anr. Vs. Geetika Khare in which admission taken by students was withdrawn due to non-recognition of college for particular course and deficiency was proved against college. Learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in (2009) 4 SCC 473 - Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital Vs. Bhupesh Khurana & Ors. in which deficiency of service was observed on the part of Dental College which admitted students to BDS course without affiliation with the University and without recognition by Dental College of India. In the case in hand, admittedly, petitioner could not get recognition from Bar Council of India for 5-years integrated B.A.L.L.B (Hons) Course, but admitted complainants without any recognition and affiliation certainly amounts to deficiency on the part of OP and Consumer Fora had jurisdiction to entertain complaints.
8. Now, the core question to be decided is whether learned State Commission was right in awarding compensation of Rs.1 lakh to each of the complainants.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of best efforts, recognition could not be obtained from Bar Council of India and petitioners being non-profitable organizations; order granting compensation by State Commission may be set aside. He has placed reliance on judgment of Hon''ble Apex court in Vinayak Mission Dental College and Anr. (Supra) in which order granting compensation of Rs.1 lakh was set aside. In the aforesaid case, complainant''s father had withdrawn complainant from BDS course on account of his own problems and on that ground order awarding compensation by learned State Commission was set aside. On the contrary, in present cases, OP advertised 5 years integrated course without seeking recognition and affiliation and admitted students for academic year 2006-07 and without examination promoted them to second year and on 27.8.2007, i.e., after more than a year applied to Bar Council of India for recognition / affiliation. No explanation has been given for not seeking recognition / affiliation before admitting complainants and for not moving requisite application for more than a year. In such circumstances, complainants are certainly entitled to compensation. Learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on judgment of Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital (Supra) in which it was observed as under:
"This is an admitted position that the appellant institute is neither affiliated with
the Magadh University nor recognized by the Dental Council of India. In absence
of affiliation by the Magadh University and recognized by the Dental Council of
India, the appellant institute could not have started admissions in the four years''
degree course of BDS"
and awarded additional compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to each of the complainants and further
awarded Rs. 1 lakh to each of the complainants as cost of litigation. In such circumstances,
learned State Commission has not committed any error in granting compensation but the question
is whether compensation of Rs. 1 lakh should have been granted to each complainant.
10. Admittedly, complainant Rashmikanta Mishra is of 22 years of age and other complainants
are about 50 years old meaning thereby, only career of complainant Rashmikanta Mishra was put
at stake for a period of 2 years, but career of other complainants was not at stake, as they could
not have been enrolled as an Advocate even after completing course. In such circumstances,
order awarding compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to complainant Rashmikanta Mishra is proper, but
compensation granted to other complainants should be reduced to Rs.50,000/-.
11. Consequently, R.P. No. 2307 of 2013 - Sambalpur University & Ors. Vs. Rashmikanta Mishra filed by the petitioner is dismissed and R.P. No. 2591 of 2013 - Sambalpur University & Ors. Vs. Issac Manikam & Ors., R.P. No. 3034 of 2014 - Sambalpur University & Ors. Md. Mothuruddin, R.P. No. 3035 of 2014 - Sambalpur University & Ors. Vs. Mayadhar Dhal and R.P. No. 3036 of 2014 - Sambalpur University & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Patel filed by the petitioners are partly allowed and order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 110 to 113 of 2011 - Issac Manikam Vs. Sambalpur University & Ors., Md. Mothuddin Vs. Sambalpur University & Ors., Mayadhar Dhal Vs. Sambalpur University & Ors. & Ramesh Chandra Patel Vs. Sambalpur University & Ors. is partly modified and compensation is reduced to Rs.50,000/- from Rs. 1 lakh awarded by learned State Commission. Parties to bear their costs.
