Integrated Management College vs Manas Raizada
2019 Latest Caselaw 365 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RFA No. 44/2019
%                                                  21st January, 2019

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT COLLEGE                            ..... Appellant

                          Through:       Mr. Manuj     Kumar       Garg,
                                         Advocate.

                          versus

MANAS RAIZADA                                          ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. Appl. No. 2469/2019 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No. 44/2019 and C.M. Appl. No. 2468/2019 (for stay)

2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit

impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 24.09.2018 by which

the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff/

student for a sum of Rs. 6,88,600/- along with interest at 9% per

annum on account of appellant/defendant/institute closing midway in

the two-year course of Higher National Diploma (hereinafter „HND

Programme‟) for EDEXCEL International and in this course, the

respondent/plaintiff had completed one year of studies.

3(i). The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed

the subject suit pleading that he was originally enrolled with the B.Sc.

course with appellant/defendant/institute but thereafter the

respondent/plaintiff was allowed to change his course to the two-year

course of HND Programme for EDEXCEL International, which was

recognized by British Council, India and Government of U.K. For

change of the course, the respondent/plaintiff completed all formalities

as required by the appellant's/defendant's/institute‟s Admission Letter

dated 11.11.2011. The HND Programme was to be conducted in the

main campus of the appellant/defendant/institute. The respondent/

plaintiff deposited fees for the course on 19.01.2012. The earlier

deposited fees of Rs. 75,000/- for the B.Sc. course was adjusted by the

appellant/defendant/institute as fees for the new HND Programme.

The appellant/defendant/institute, thereafter, shifted to a new address

which came to be known as Centre for Advance Computing (COAC).

When the respondent/plaintiff returned from his Dussehra holidays on

26.10.2012, it was found that the appellant/defendant/institute was

shutting down the institute by November, 2012. The

appellant/defendant/institute expressed its willingness to refund the

course fees and the amount spent on rented accommodation and

instead offered an alternative course which was not identical to the

HND Programme in another institute such as Frame Boxx and C.G.

Mantra, however, the respondent/plaintiff could not join the

alternative course because the alternative course did not offer the same

subjects and syllabus which was taught in the HND Programme and

the same was also recognized by the British Council, India.

3(ii). On account of the appellant/defendant/institute being shut

down in November, 2012, the respondent/plaintiff returned to his

home at Kanpur. Surprisingly, however, on 22.08.2013 the

respondent/plaintiff was telephonically called to submit an assignment

in Delhi without the appellant/defendant/institute having imparted the

necessary classes for the HND Programme. Ultimately, the

respondent/plaintiff issued a Legal Notice dated 24.12.2014

demanding a sum of Rs. 7,83,180/- along with interest, and as this

demand was not complied with, the subject suit was filed.

4. The appellant/defendant/institute contested the suit. The

appellant/defendant/institute did not dispute that the respondent/

plaintiff was admitted to the two-year HND Programme. It was also

admitted that the course was shut down in November, 2012 being

financial unviable. It was also stated that respondent/plaintiff had the

paid the course fees for one year. It was also admitted that the

respondent/plaintiff was given an option to shift to another institute. It

was also claimed that the appellant/defendant/institute entered into a

service agreement with one faculty member, Mr. Suhail, so that the

respondent/defendant could complete the course. The appellant/

defendant/institute admitted the receipt of registration fee of Rs.

5600/-, fees of Rs. 75,000/- which was adjusted from the B.Sc. course

to the present HND Programme for the respondent/plaintiff, and two

further payments of Rs. 20,000/- each made by the

respondent/plaintiff for the concerned HND Programme. The

appellant/defendant/institute also admitted that the HND Programme

was a unique course recognized by the British Council, India, and the

Government of U.K. It was further stated that the subject to the

completion of the terms and conditions of completion of the course, a

certificate was to be awarded but the same could not be done in the

present case.

5. The trial court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the suit amount, if yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP

3. Relief."

6. The documents admitted during the course of

admission/denial and the evidence led by the parties are mentioned

and discussed in paras 8, 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment, and

these paras read as under:

"8. During admission denial, the defendant admitted the following documents filed by the plaintiff.

Ex.P-1 (Ex.PW-1/4) is the prospectus. Ex.P-2 is also the prospectus.

Ex.P-3 (Ex.PW-1/3) is admission letter dated 11.11.2011. Ex.P-4 (Ex.PW-1/1) is the receipt for a sum of Rs. 5600/- dated 21.06.2011.

Ex.PW-1/2 is the receipt for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- dated 07.07.2011.

Ex.PW-1/5 is the receipt for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- dated 19.01.2012.

Ex.P-5 (Ex.PW-2/1) is the notice dated 23.04.2014 sent by the father of the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.P-6 (Ex.PW-2/2) is the reply sent by the defendant dated 05.08.2014 to the legal notice Ex.P-5. Ex.P-7 (Ex PW-1/6) is the legal notice dated 24.12.2014 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant officials.

Ex.P-8 ( Ex.PW-1/7) are the postal receipts. Ex.P-9 (Ex.PW-1/8) (colly) is the acknowledgement of the post office.

xxx xxx xxx

10. During plaintiff evidence, plaintiff examined two witnesses PW-1 Sh. Manas Raizada tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/8. PW-2 Sh.Sunil Srivastava tendered his affidavit Ex.PW2/A.

11. During Defendant evidence, defendant examined two witness DW-1 Sh. Gokul Jha who tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW-1/A and relied upon the document Ex.D/1 (Mark A). Defendant further examined DW-2 Sh. Hari Mohan who tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW- 2/A."

7. In my opinion, the trial court has committed no error in

decreeing the suit because admittedly the appellant/defendant/institute

stopped the HND Programme only after one year without completing

the same i.e. the required two-year course. The trial court has rightly

observed that though the respondent/plaintiff was offered to be

transferred to another institute, the respondent/plaintiff rightly refused

transfer to an alternative institute as the alternative course in a

different institute did not have an identical status as the HND

Programme Certificate which was recognized by the British Council,

Indian and the Government of U.K. The trial court has rightly

reasoned that each course has its recognition and reputation and

shifting the students to another course does not compensate for the

loss from the earlier course. The trial court has further observed that

educational institutions should not be business enterprises and

precious years of it‟s students life cannot be allowed to be sacrificed at

the altar of profitability of an educational institute. Accordingly, the

trial court directed the refund of the fees and other charges paid by the

respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant/institute totaling to Rs.

1,20,600/-. The trial court has further rightly directed refund of the

hostel charges which were actually rental charges paid by the

respondent/plaintiff during the period of his first year stay at Delhi for

completing the first year of the two-year course.

8. So far as the charges towards harassment, trauma and loss

of opportunity is concerned, the trial court has rightly held and

reasoned that no amount is enough to compensate for the loss of time

and there is no scientific formulae to compute the quantum of loss and

therefore the trial court estimated that the respondent/plaintiff would

have earned around Rs. 20,000/- per month, and this amount for two

years totaling to Rs. 4,80,000/- was hence decreed in favour of the

respondent/plaintiff by making the following observations:

"18. Coming to the question of mental trauma and harassment suffered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff as well as his parents have suffered a big mental trauma. Student life is the most crucial phase of anyone's life. It provides the foundation upon which the whole edifice of one's personality is built. The mistakes and shortcoming in this phase has a cascading effect on the next phases of life. Wastage of one and a half precious years and in fact, two years on account of the dis-continuance of the course lead to great mental harassment. No amount is enough to compensate for the lost time. Time is money, is precious and is limited. Though there is no scientific formula to compute the quantum of loss suffered by the plaintiff but some objective determination is required to be made to the extent possible. The plaintiff was enrolled for diploma in animation. Had the said diploma been completed, by a conservative estimate, he could have earned a minimum of Rs. 20,000/- per month either in a regular job or a freelancer. Plaintiff was pushed back by a period of two years. Since the plaintiff was forced to leave in the middle of the second year, therefore, it can be safely said that plaintiff has suffered a loss of around Rs. 20,000/- per month for a period of two years. Therefore, the opportunity costs in the present case turns out to be roughly Rs. 4,80,000/- coupled with costs of Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of compensating the plaintiff for the mental torture and harassment which the plaintiff suffered at the hands of the defendant. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstance, plaintiff is entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- on this count. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."

(Underlining Added)

9. The ld. counsel for the appellant/defendant/institute

argued that the appellant/defendant/institute had engaged a faculty

member Mr. Suhail to complete the course, however I fail to

understand this argument because if no classes are held, and which

surely would have been a requirement on the basis of which the

British Council, India and the Government of U.K. would have given

recognition to the subject courses, therefore, it cannot be argued by the

appellant/defendant/institute that the course will be continued for the

students on the internet. Also, it is seen that it was only on 22.08.2013

that the respondent/plaintiff was telephonically called to submit the

assignment in Delhi and the same was without imparting the necessary

classes. Also, in my opinion, the argument of the appellant/defendant/

institute that alternative courses were offered is liable to be rejected

because it has not been established on record that the course of the

alternative institute had an identical status and same recognition as

was offered by the appellant/defendant/institute under the HND

Programme.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in

this appeal. Dismissed.

JANUARY 21, 2019                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK