ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) - Admitted facts giving rise to this appeal are, that respondent No. 1 as Authorised Study Centre for H.P. of Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, respondent No. 2, issued advertisement, Annexure C-1, in “Times of India” on 26.11.2006, inviting applications for admission to Job Oriented Professional Distance Education Courses detailed in the said advertisement. This pertains to the admission for 2006-07. One of the courses offered was M.Phil in the subject of Physics, with which we are concerned in the present appeal. 2.Appellant deposited Rs. 14,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- with respondent No. 1 was again not disputed. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the parties admitted that so far respondent No. 2, University is concerned, it has been established by a State Act passed by Haryana Government. 3.Distance Education Council on 26.11.2006 had published the following notice, copy whereof Annexure C-3 and the same is reproduced : “Distance Education Council Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068 Recognition of Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates for Employment Recognition of Distance Education Institutes. Distance Education Council (DEC) constituted under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 with the object inter alia of determination of standards for distance education in the country had prescribed guidelines. In that behalf, it is mandatory for all institutions to obtain prior approval of the DEC before commencing any programme/course for degree/diploma/certificate through distance mode. DEC has learnt that a number of institutions are offering programmes through distance mode without authorisation or recognition by the DEC. In few cases, deemed to be universities and State universities/institutions have sought to franchise to third parties and/or beyond the territory of the state in which the parent institution is located. All the institutions have been asked to refrain from such offering vide a letter dated May 13, 2003 jointly signed by the Chairman, UGC, AICTE and DEC. This is impermissible and does not have the sanction of DEC. All the institutions have been asked to refrain from such offering vide a letter dated May 13, 2003 jointly signed by the Chairman, UGC, AICTE and DEC. This is impermissible and does not have the sanction of DEC. The public is cautioned that before they enroll for distance education in any institution, they must be satisfied that the institution has sanction for granting degree/diploma/certificate for the course in question and that the centre in question has specific prior approval of DEC .(Emphasis supplied) A list of approved institutions with their centres and their programmes are placed on website at http://www.dec.ac.in or http://www.dec.ignou.ac.in Further inquiries may be addressed to Director, Distance Education Council, DEC, Building, IGNOU Campus, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068. Director Distance Education Council”. 4.Record further shows, that meanwhile Himachal Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, approached Indira Gandhi National Open University, on the subject ‘information regarding approval status of programme-reg’. Since this communication is relevant and material for deciding this appeal, it is also extracted hereinbelow :- INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY Prof. Manjulika Srivastava F. No. IG/DEC/Misc/G-303/2214 Dated 11.1.2007 Sub : Information regarding approval status of programmes reg. Dear Sh. Singh, This has reference to your letter dated 10.1.2007 regarding recognition status of programme/s M.Phil course (in Science/Arts) of Ch.Devi Lal University,Sirsa through distance mode. In this connection we would like to mention that the above mentioned programme of the said University is not approved by DEC as yet as per Government of India Gazette Notification No. 44 dated 1st March, 1995 for posts and services under Central Government. You may visit DEC website : www.dec.ac.in to know the recent recognition status of any programme .(Emphasis supplied) With regards. Yours sincerely (Manjulika Srivastava) Bhim Singh Secretary Himachal Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.” 5.So far Indira Gandhi National Open University is concerned it is a Central University, established in the year 1985 by a Central Act and is directly funded by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India. Respondent No. 2 is a recognised University by the University Grants Commission. Photostat copy of information brochure 2006-07 issued by respondent No. 2 for Distance Learning Education is annexed as Annexure R-1 and R-2 on behalf of the respondents. 6.Rs. 14,000/- deposited by the appellant is refunded to him by respondent No. 1, so now dispute remains for the refund of Rs. 2000/-. Photostat copy of information brochure 2006-07 issued by respondent No. 2 for Distance Learning Education is annexed as Annexure R-1 and R-2 on behalf of the respondents. 6.Rs. 14,000/- deposited by the appellant is refunded to him by respondent No. 1, so now dispute remains for the refund of Rs. 2000/-. In addition to this, appellant also claims compensations, costs of the entire litigation besides punitive damages against both the respondents. 7.When the sum of Rs. 2000/- was not refunded to him, complaint No. 52/2007 was filed by the appellant against the respondents, the same has been dismissed by the District Forum below. Hence this appeal. 8.Respondent No. 2 filed reply to the appeal and filed Annexure R-1 on the subject, “Provisional Recognition,” issued by Indira Gandhi National Open University to Prof. R.K. Singh Dean, Academic Affairs of respondent No. 2-University. Contents of this communication are very relevant for the decision of this case, and is being extracted hereinbelow :- INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY Distance Education Council F. No. DEC/Univ/State/07/5596 Dated 3.9. Sub : Provisional Recognition. ………….. Prof. Swaraj Basu, Director, Dear Sir, This has reference to your application to the Distance Education Council requesting for recognition of programmes offered through distance mode by your University. We would like to inform you that your university has been granted provisional recognition for offering programmes (approved by the statutory bodies of your University) through distance mode for a period of one year w.e.f. the date of issue of this letter. (Emphasis supplied) However for recognition of your institution for offering programmes through distance mode in the next academic year i.e. from June-July, 2008, you are requested to submit a fresh application in the prescribed format developed by the DEC which may be downloaded from the DEC website : www.dec.ac.in. We would also like to inform you that the DEC has decided not to insist on territorial jurisdiction to be followed by institutions in offering programmes through distance mode and on that matter universities should be governed by their own Acts and Statutes. Yours sincerely (Swaraj Basu) Prof. R.K. Singh Dean, Academic Affairs Chaudhary Devilal University Sirsa-125055 Haryana.” 9.From the above narrated facts and contents of the documents placed by the parties on record, it is clear that for starting Distance Education Learning Programme, concerned University has to get recognition from the Distance Education Council. Yours sincerely (Swaraj Basu) Prof. R.K. Singh Dean, Academic Affairs Chaudhary Devilal University Sirsa-125055 Haryana.” 9.From the above narrated facts and contents of the documents placed by the parties on record, it is clear that for starting Distance Education Learning Programme, concerned University has to get recognition from the Distance Education Council. 10.Being alive to this situation, application was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 and as per contents of Annexure R-1 provisional recognition was granted for offering programmes approved by the statutory body of University through distance mode of a period of one year w.e.f. the date of issue of this letter i.e. dated 3.9.2007. Thus it is evident that provisional admission was accorded from 3.9.2007. This letter was received on 12.9.2007 by the Dean of Academic Affairs of respondent No. 2, University. 11.Contents of Annexure C-4 further strengthen the claim of the appellant regarding programme/s M.Phil Course (in Science/Arts) of respondent No. 2 University through distance mode not having been recognised by DEC. Thus it is evident that so far respondents are concerned both of them were aware that when respondent No. 2 floated Annexure R-1 and R-2 i.e. Information Brochure for Distance Education Learning Programme through University Centre for Distance Learning said course had not been approved by the Distance Education Council. 12.This position is supported from Annexure R-1 supra filed alongwith reply to this appeal by respondent No. 2. It is admitted case of both respondents inter se that respondent No. 1 was the authorized study centre for Himachal Pradesh of the other i.e. respondent No. 2. In the face of Annexure C-4 as well as Annexure R-1 extracted hereinabove, it is evident that respondent No. 2 was well aware that before starting Distance Education Courses, it is to obtain prior permission from Distance Education Council. It was not obtained as per the Annexure C-4 which was provisionally granted as per R-1 supra w.e.f. 3.9.2007 till May, 2008. 13.In these circumstances we are of the view that merely because respondent No. 2 was established under a State Act and is also recognised by University Grants Commission, does not discharge it of its obligation to have obtained prior recognition of its course offered vide Annexure C-1 by its admitted authorised centre respondent No. 1 from the Distance Education Council. 13.In these circumstances we are of the view that merely because respondent No. 2 was established under a State Act and is also recognised by University Grants Commission, does not discharge it of its obligation to have obtained prior recognition of its course offered vide Annexure C-1 by its admitted authorised centre respondent No. 1 from the Distance Education Council. 14.Faced with this situation learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 stated that it had issued Annexure C-1 for the courses in question of respondent No. 2 after it was appointed as Authorised Study Centre for H.P. by the latter University. Receipt of Rs. 2000/- vide Annexure C-2 is not in dispute. In these circumstances we are of the view that both the respondents are guilty of having indulged into unfair trade practice and are bound to indemnify the appellant. 15.We may hasten to add here that respondent No. 2 discharges function of holding examinations etc. on the basis of the Act passed by the State of Haryana while establishing the said University as well as its Statutes and ordinances etc. As such it can very well plead that it is neither the service provider, nor the appellant a consumer qua it. However, this defence is only available in case the course offered had been duly got approved by the University from the competent authority as per law, in the instant case from Distance Education Council, which it could obtain provisionally w.e.f. 3.9.2007. As such it could not derive any benefit from the line of decisions that when University or Education Board or other statutory authority who holds examinations etc. under a statute, for as under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no jurisdiction. There is nothing on record to suggest that for 2006-2007 session approval of Distance Education Council had been obtained by the respondent No. 2. 16.It may be noted on the basis of the documents from the record as extracted hereinabove, that the course in question was not recognised by the competent authority of which fact both the respondents shall be presumed to be well aware. Once this conclusion is arrived at then the decision of this case need not detain us further. 17.At this stage it was urged on behalf of respondent No. 1 that sum of Rs. 2000/- is non-refundable. Once this conclusion is arrived at then the decision of this case need not detain us further. 17.At this stage it was urged on behalf of respondent No. 1 that sum of Rs. 2000/- is non-refundable. Therefore there is no merit in this appeal and learned Counsel for the said respondent prayed for its dismissal. In our opinion respondent No. 2 is directly guilty of having indulged into unfair trade practice by having issued Information Brochure for the year 2006-07 vide Annexure R-1 and R-2 for Distance Learning Programme through its University Centre for Distance Learning. And respondent No. 1 is also jointly liable for the same as well as a service provider to the appellants. In our opinion both the respondents are jointly and severally liable for compensating the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Kumar submitted that his client is not at all at fault. Thus according to him the appeal is not maintainable against respondent No. 2 -University and the same may be dismissed. He had no answer to the above extracted Annexures. 18.Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, as already noted stated that sum of Rs. 2000/- was not refundable as it was for processing charges etc. This plea is likewise without any substance. Reason being that before having accepted to be Authorised Study Centre for H.P. of respondent No. 2, as mentioned in Annexure C-1, it ought to have ascertained as to whether the courses being offered by it were duly recognized by the competent authority like Distance Education Council or not. She further argued that the appellant withdrew from the course, so his fee of Rs. 14,000/- was refunded to him. In our opinion he has justified in doing so. Because the course at the relevant time was not recognised. 19.No other point was urged. 20.In view of the aforesaid discussions this appeal is allowed as a result of it the impugned order passed by District Forum below in complaint No. 52/2007, dated 31.7.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently respondent No. 1 is directed to refund Rs. 2000/- with 9% interest w.e.f. 16.11.2006 till the date of its payment/deposit whichever is earlier, alongwith Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for undue harassment to the appellant, besides sum of Rs. Consequently respondent No. 1 is directed to refund Rs. 2000/- with 9% interest w.e.f. 16.11.2006 till the date of its payment/deposit whichever is earlier, alongwith Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for undue harassment to the appellant, besides sum of Rs. 10,000/- as punitive damages, which entire amount it is entitled to recover from respondent No. 2 on the strength of this order, by executing it before the District Forum below. As the said respondent No. 2 has not only floated the courses as contained in Annexure C-1, for 2006-07, but had also appointed respondent No. 1 as its Authorised Study Centre for H.P., without having obtained prior recognition of DEC. Appeal is allowed in these terms. 21.Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order free of costs from the Reader. M.R.B. ———————