Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds I.E.T. Bhaddal Liable For Denying Student Exam Opportunity; Awards ₹50,000 Compensation

The complainant, Mr. Raman, took admission in the D-Pharmacy (two-year course) at the Institute of Engineering & Technology (I.E.T.), Bhaddal, Punjab (OP-1) in 2019. The complainant stated that he enrolled based on the assurances of OP-3, who allegedly acted as a commission agent for the institute. At the time of admission, OP-1 informed the complainant that the annual course fee was ₹20,000 and transportation charges were ₹12,000 per year. The complainant accordingly paid ₹20,000 as first-year fee and later ₹6,000 for six months' transport, and attended classes regularly from September 2019 to February 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first-year examination was not held, and the institute assured the complainant that he would be promoted to the second year. On 16.02.2021, the complainant received a fee circular and date sheet through WhatsApp and was asked by the institute to deposit the second-year fee. The complainant then visited the college, filled the APF (examination form), and deposited ₹23,000 (₹10,000 + ₹13,000) on 19.02.2021, after which the complainant was issued a roll number. On 22.02.2021, the complainant received the question paper for Pharmaceutics-I for the online examination and submitted his answers. However, the complainant did not receive the question paper for the next exam scheduled on 24.02.2021. When the complainant contacted the class teacher, he was informed that he was not eligible to sit in the exam because the complainant had not filled the APF form, which the complainant claimed he had already submitted. The complainant alleged that despite accepting his fees, issuing a roll number, and permitting him to take the first exam, OP-1 arbitrarily denied the complainant the opportunity to appear in the second exam. The complainant therefore filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, seeking refund, compensation, and litigation costs. Complainant's Contentions The complainant argued that the institute acted arbitrarily by first accepting his second-year fees, issuing a roll number, and permitting him to write the first exam, but then stopping him from appearing in the next paper on the false ground that he had not submitted the APF form. He maintained that he had completed all formalities as instructed and that the sudden refusal caused academic loss and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP No. 1 – Institute's Contentions OP-1 contended that the complainant failed to submit the APF (examination) form within the prescribed time despite repeated opportunities given through various Board circulars. OP-1 stated that the complainant had appeared in only two sessional (MST) exams and secured zero marks, and that the roll number was issued to him merely on the basis of sessional marks and not due to proper submission of the examination form. OP-1 further alleged that the complainant intentionally deposited fees on 19.02.2021 at the last moment, without furnishing necessary details, after learning that exams were starting on 22.02.2021. OP-1 therefore maintained that the complainant was not entitled to appear in the examinations and denied any deficiency in service. OP No. 2 – Punjab State Board's Contentions OP-2 stated that it had no role in the alleged default by the complainant, as examination applications are processed only when submitted before the deadline. Since the complainant's form was not submitted within the stipulated time, OP-2 maintained that no action could be taken at a later stage and no lapse was attributable to the Board. OP-3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded ex parte. Observations of the Commission: The Commission noted that OP-1's own actions—accepting the complainant's fees, issuing a roll number, and allowing him to appear in the first exam—contradicted its claim that he had not submitted the APF form. If the form was truly missing, the institute should not have permitted him to take even the first paper. The Commission also observed that OP-1's internal letters showed that many students faced difficulty submitting forms during COVID-19, and therefore the institute could not put the entire blame on the complainant. This contradictory conduct amounted to deficiency in service by OP-1. No lapse was found on the part of OP-2, and OP-3 remained ex parte. Decision of the Commission: The complaint was partly allowed, holding OP-1 liable for deficiency in service. OP-1 was directed to pay ₹50,000 as global compensation (including litigation costs) within 60 days, failing which interest @ 9% per annum will apply. The complaint against OP-2 and OP-3 was dismissed. Case no. CC/203/2021 Case Title: Raman vs. Institute of Engineering & Technology, Bhaddal & Ors. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds I.E.T. Bhaddal Liable For Denying Student Exam Opportunity; Awards ₹50,000 Compensation

Praveen Mishra

Tags