ORDER Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral):- 25 complaints were filed by the private respondents against the appellant, State of Himachal Pradesh, Director Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh University and one Smt. Rama Sinha. Since common questions of law and fact were involved in all these cases before the District Forum below, therefore, vide order dated 7.5.2003, those were consolidated with the complaint titled as Isha Nand Vs. State of H.P. & others. At the time of hearing all these appeals, learned counsel for the parties were not at variance that the reply filed in this case has been taken to be the reply in all other complaints. Though in each case separate order has been passed on the basis of the reply of the respondent in the complaint of Ms. Isha Nand Vs. State of H.P. being Complaint No. 1/2003.As such we have taken up of the file of Ms. Isha Nand and are passing this order in Appeal No. 170/2006, which shall govern the rest of the cases as well, i.e. Appeal Nos. 90/2006 to 103/2006, 121/2006 and 161/2006 to 170/2006, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases. 2. Appellant is an Engineering College at Kala Amb. Private respondents in all these appeals were the applicants or being admitted to Information Technology ours to second year of 4 year B-Tech degree course in the said discipline. Copy of this notice is Annexure R-1 copy of which is at page 25 of the complaint file. Director Technical Education had in no uncertain terms had mentioned in this Annexure that admission to the course for the academic session 2000-01 "as per the Honble High Court of Delhi, " In this advertisement under the heading seats to be filed, it is again clearly mentioned besides other things" subject to decision of Honble Court". 3. All the private respondents applied for admission to the course in question and they in fact were admitted is another fact regarding which there is no controversy raised by the appellant. All complaints were contested by the appellant. 4. 3. All the private respondents applied for admission to the course in question and they in fact were admitted is another fact regarding which there is no controversy raised by the appellant. All complaints were contested by the appellant. 4. At the very outset, we may observe that in case appellant college was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education and at the same time had been affiliated to the Himachal Pradesh University, during the academic session 2000-01 for the Information Technology course, impugned order has to be set aside, otherwise no exception can be taken to it. 5. Therefore with reference to the documents placed on file we specifically called upon learned counsel for the appellant to show any document to suggest that the IT course was either approved by the All India Council for technical Education or the college was affiliated for the said course with the Himachal Pradesh University. None could be pointed from the record by Mr. Nag, learned counsel for the appellant. He however laid great emphasis on Annexure R-1 and submitted that his client has committed no illegality, much less wrong while admitting students of Information Technology course during the session 2000-01. 6. Mr. Nag also urged that complaint was barred by time and this plea having been specifically raised, but not dealt with by the District Forum below. Thus all these appeals need to be allowed and cases remanded back on this short ground alone. Further according to him, District Forum below had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because consolidated amount of compensation claimed by the private respondents for the alleged unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. In this behalf he placed reliance of an order of the Chandigarh State Commission in Consumer Complain No.6/2005 decided on 4l July 2005. Next submission of Mr. Nag was that the complaints raised disputed and complicated questions of law and fact which could only be settled by Civil Court and not in summary proceedings by the foras under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Next submission of Mr. Nag was that the complaints raised disputed and complicated questions of law and fact which could only be settled by Civil Court and not in summary proceedings by the foras under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Lastly and in the alternative he urged that if all his submissions fail, then per him compensation awarded is extremely on higher side which in the instant cases had to be nominal because his client had made arrangement for teaching the students who had studied for two semesters Thus he prayed for grant of appropriate relief and awarded very nominal compensation to the students. 7. All these please have been contested by Mr. Thakur on behalf of the complainants-private respondents. He submitted that 15 precious months of the students have been ruined because of misrepresentation on the part of the appellant who through out projected that it is not only affiliated with H.P University, but is also approved by the All India Council for Technical Education for IT course during the year 2000-01. According to him, compensation awarded is inadequate and prayed for dismissing the appeals with punitive costs against the appellant. Regarding limitation he submitted that when his clients could not take examination of first semester, they were assured by Smt. Rama Sinha that the students should study in the second semester and examination of both the semesters will be held in April/May, 2001. As such cause of action finally accrued in favour of his clients when either in the month of April or May, 2001, again they could not sit in the Examination. Here we may notice that it is not the case of either of appellant or Smt Rama Sinha that despite their asking the private respondents to sit in the examination they refused. A perusal of the complaints shows that those were filed on 5.3.2003, as such according to Mr. Thakur complaints were within time. Regarding pecuniary jurisdiction he submitted that the judgment relied upon for ousting jurisdiction of District Forum below on behalf of the appellant is wholly inapplicable, because there the complainant and respondent both were same, whereas in the instant case complainant in each case is separate. Further according to him to disputed questions of law and fact are involved in these cases for referring his clients to the Civil Court. 8. Mr. Further according to him to disputed questions of law and fact are involved in these cases for referring his clients to the Civil Court. 8. Mr. Parmod Bhimta learned counsel for the Himachal Pradesh University submitted that the appellant college was not affiliated with his client during the session 2000-01 for Information Technology course. 9. On behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh and Director Technical Education Mr. Verma, submitted that position of his client was very precarious. Admittedly he had not issued Annexure R-1 of his own. To the contrary it was issued pursuant of the order of the Honble Delhi High Court and in it students were informed that the admission was subject to the decision of the Honble Court, therefore, according to Mr. Verma in case he (Director) had not issued the advertisement he would have disobeyed the order of the Honble Court. Since advertisement Annexure R-1 was issued in obedience to the order of the Delhi High Court, therefore, in no circumstances his clients are liable for any compensation. By referring to Annexure R-1 he stated that students were put to notice that it was being issued as per directions of the Honble High Court of Delhi and the admission to the course in question was subject to decision of the Honble Court, thus he prayed for exonerating his clients of the compensation levied upon them by modifying the order so far it holds his clients liable to pay the amount. 10. We shall first of all take up the plea urged by Mr. Nag, on behalf of the appellant regarding limitation. Admittedly in the examination of first semester when it was held the private respondents could not appear. Why? There is no explanation put forth by the appellant. That being the situation we are prima facie satisfied that it was only the assurance of Smt. Rama Sinha, that the complainants in al these cases joined second semester and continued their studies. 11. But even when the examination was going to be held as assured by her in April/may, 2001 none of the students could sit in the examination. It s also not the case of the appellant that they had arranged for the students taking examination, who refused. 11. But even when the examination was going to be held as assured by her in April/may, 2001 none of the students could sit in the examination. It s also not the case of the appellant that they had arranged for the students taking examination, who refused. Therefore, cause of action finally accrued to them in April/may, 2001, thus all the complaints were well within time under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, herein after referred to as the Act, as such plea of limitation raised by Mr. Nag is hereby rejected. 12. Now coming to the next plea that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to have entertained the complaints, as consolidated amount in 25 complaints exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction based on the decision of the Chandigarh State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 6/2005 supra. Firstly the District Forum below had consolidated all the complaints in the presence of learned counsel for the parties, who raised no objection. Otherwise each case would have been dealt by it individually. In addition to this, appellant is estopped by its acts of omission and commission, besides acquiescence in raising this plea for the simple reason that it had also filed single pleading in Complaint No. 1/2003 Isha Nand Vs. State of H.P. & others. In case it had any objection, appellant was duty bound to have insisted that each case must be dealt with separately and independently and the cases may not be consolidated. Here order passed on 7.5.2003 by the District Forum below while, consolidating the complaints is extracted below: "7.5.2003. Present: Mr. Manish Kishore, vice for the comp. Mr. AS Shah, Adv. For OP No.4. Mr. Lekh Ram has appeared for the OP No.3. None for the OP No.5 hence exparte despite service. Ops No.1 & 2 not present. It is stated that these complaints No. 1/03 to complaint No.24/03 pertains to the same cause of action and those be consolidated. Request is allowed and all these complaints are ordered to be consolidated with complaint No.1/2003 titled as Smt. Isha Anand Vs. State. Let Fresh notice to the Ops No.1 & 2 be issued now again for 27.06.03. Sd/- President Sd/- Sd/- Member Member. Request is allowed and all these complaints are ordered to be consolidated with complaint No.1/2003 titled as Smt. Isha Anand Vs. State. Let Fresh notice to the Ops No.1 & 2 be issued now again for 27.06.03. Sd/- President Sd/- Sd/- Member Member. 13.Learned counsel for the appellant was present and had not objected to the consolidation of all the complaints, as such plea raised in this behalf as well as reliance placed on the decision of the Chandigarh State Commission supra, on half of the appellant is hereby rejected. 14. Now coming to the plea of the appellant, that the complaints raised disputed questions of law and fact which could only be decided by Civil Court. In our opinion this plea has been raised simply to be rejected. Reason being that appellant college was neither approved by the Council of Technical Education for the IT course during 2000-01 session nor it was affiliated to the H.P. University. And if it was so, why his client approached the Delhi High Court, pursuant to which Annexure R-1 as issued. Mr. Nag had no explanation on this aspect. This clearly establishes that the college was neither affiliated to Himachal Pradesh University nor was it approved by All India Council for Technical Education so far IT course during 2000-01 session was concerned. In Addition to this there is no material produced by the appellant on record to show that what are the disputed questions of law and fact involved, so complainants should be referred to Civil Court. Therefore referring the private respondents to Civil Court would not only be contrary to law, but will be also against public Policy as it would lead to multiplicity of litigation. Appellant as a service provider and private respondents being consumers, and the former not only indulged in unfair trade practice but was also deficient in rendering service are the facts which are proved beyond any shadow of doubt in all these cases. On the question of students being consumers reference in the present appeals is being made to a recent decision of the National Commission in Deputy Registrar (Colleges) vs. Ruchika Jain, 111 (2006) CPJ 343 (NC). Relevant conclusion covering present appeals is extracted below: "Conclusion: 28. Hence, we arrive at the conclusion that. On the question of students being consumers reference in the present appeals is being made to a recent decision of the National Commission in Deputy Registrar (Colleges) vs. Ruchika Jain, 111 (2006) CPJ 343 (NC). Relevant conclusion covering present appeals is extracted below: "Conclusion: 28. Hence, we arrive at the conclusion that. x x xx x x x x x x (ii) Giving of admissions to the students in a school/college/institution/university by recovering fees and in such cases if there is any dispute with regard to the validity of such admission or illegality, irregularity committed by such institution in giving admission, such dispute would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This is on the basis of contract between the parties, i.e. students and the institution, and is based on the consideration (fees) for rendering education. Such students on the basis of Section 2(1) (d) (ii) read with section 2(1) (0) would be hirer of service for consideration and hence would be consumer. Further, deficiency as defined under Section 2(1 )(g) deficiency as defined under Section 2(1 )(g) would be apparent as this would be a fault/short coming in nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law." 15.The question regarding appellant neither being affiliated to H.P. University nor being recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education came up for consideration before District Forum Mandi, Camp at Sunder Nagar in Consumer Complaint No. 140/2002 (old), 186/2005 (new) in the case of B,R. Suman and another Vs. IITT College and others. In this case Smt. Rama Sinha Chairperson of the appellant college and State of H.P. through technical Education were not arrayed as respondents. Compensation was allowed by the District Forum below in favour of the complainants. Matter came up in appeal filed by Vivek Manhas complainant No.2 before this Commission in Appeal No. 135/2006 as interest had been allowed on the sum deposited from the date of order only. Decision in this case was relied upon by Mr. Jagdish Thakur wen a reference is made to the order of this Commission in Appeal No. 135/2006, it is clear that appellant as well as Smt. Rama Sinha, both were set ex parte by the District Forum below. Decision in this case was relied upon by Mr. Jagdish Thakur wen a reference is made to the order of this Commission in Appeal No. 135/2006, it is clear that appellant as well as Smt. Rama Sinha, both were set ex parte by the District Forum below. However they appeared through their learned counsel before District Forum below, and did not contest the order to refund the fees realized by them with 7/1/2% from the date of order and not from the date of deposit. Neither the appellant nor Smt. Rama Sinha Challenged the findings of the District Forum below that the v former was neither affiliated to H.P. University nor was recognized by the All India Council of Technical Education. This order could not be disputed on behalf of the appellant. This is an additional ground to dismiss the appeal of the appellant. 16. Mr. Nag submitted that private respondents are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever because in the advertisement it was notified that the admission was subject to the decision of the Honble High Court. This plea has only been raised simply to be rejected. On one hand appellant is holding itself out to be affiliated for IT course during 2000-01 session with the University as well as being approved for this session by All India Council for technical Education, if this was the true and correct position we do not understand where was the need for appellant to have gone to Delhi High Court seeking direction to the Administrator for Counselling etc. This plea on behalf of the appellant,^ our opinion is self contradictory and mutually destructive and is hereby rejected. 17. Now coming to the alternative plea of quantum urged by Mr. Nag, When according to him is highly excessive without any rational basis behind it. Students had joined the college during the session 2000/01 for IT course. They were shifted to other colleges because of directions of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.24/2001. Administrator was also appointed under this order, what the students got after having studied in the appellant college and having paid the fees etc. is nothing but stress and strain of loosing more than one year and wastage of the hard earned money of their parents. Administrator was also appointed under this order, what the students got after having studied in the appellant college and having paid the fees etc. is nothing but stress and strain of loosing more than one year and wastage of the hard earned money of their parents. In the peculiar circumstances of this case we feel that compensation needs to be slightly reduced and accordingly it is ordered that to each one of the complainant-private respondent in these cases appellant shall pay Rs.75,000/- plus 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of its actual payment/deposit besides compensation and costs as assessed by the District Forum below. Appellant will also pay the cost of these appeals, which is quantified at Rs.5000/- in each case. We further direct that the appellant shall also refund the amount of fees to each of the complainants private respondents if not already refunded in terms of the order District Forum below. It will also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit by the complaints-private respondents with the college till actual payment is made. 18. No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion while partly allowing these appeals, it is ordered that the appellant is liable to pay Rs.75,000/- to each one of the complainant-private respondent in these cases together with 9% per annum interest on this amount from the date (s) of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment/deposit whichever is earlier, besides full compensation and costs as assessed by the District Forum below in addition fee if not already refunded, which shall also carry interest @ 9% from the date(s) of deposit till the date of payment. It is further ordered that each one of the complaint-private respondent is entitled to Rs.5000/- cost in these appeals. Subject to this modification all these appeals are disposed of. Office is directed to place authenticated copy of this order on the files of Appeal Nos.91/2006 to 103/2006, 121/2006 and 161/2006 to 169/2006. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith in all the appeals. Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.