Before,

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna

Appeal  No. 379 of 2016

1. DIT School of Engineering through its Director, Plot No. 48A, Knowledge Park III, Greater Noida- 201308 through Authorised Signatory

2. The Director, DIT School of Engineering, Plot No. 48A, Knowledge Park III, Greater Noida- 201308

                                                                                                                                          ............... Appellant/Opposite Party

                                      Versus

1. Aishwarya Mishra, D/o- Anirudh Kumar Mishra, R/o C/o- Maheshwar Thakur, Bajrangpuri, Gaighat, Gulzarbagh, Patna-7
2. The Director, Career Solution, 1^st Floor, Dumraon Palace, Frazer Road, Dak Bunglow Chouraha, Patna- 800001                    

                                                                                                                                                                   ........... Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant- Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent – Aishwarya Mishra herself

Before:

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

Mr. Subodh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member)

                        Mr. Raj Kuamr Pandey (Member)

Dated: 27.09.2022

Order

Mr. Subodh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member)

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment/order passed on 30.09.2016 by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum, Patna (herein in after mentioned as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 169 of 2013 whereby and whereunder allowing the complainant petition opposite parties /appellant have been directed to make payment of forfeited tuition fee amount to Rs. 83,900/- along with Compensation & litigation cost Rs. 10,000/- from the date of the receipt of the order failing which opposite parties would be liable to pay 10% interest per annum upon forfeited amount till payment.
2. Appellants/Opposite parties case in brief is that respondent no. 1 filled the application form for taking admission with the appellants and she was provisionally admitted in B.Tech program in DIT school of Engineering in C.S.E Branch for the session 2012-13 and had paid fees for getting registered with the course. Complainant alleged that she was not provided the facility as per assurance given by the appellants and she was also mentally and physically tortured by other students of the institute. Complainant further alleged that no medical aid was provided to her and her doctor suggested her not to stay at a private hostel. In such circumstance complainant requested the college to cancel her admission and refund her entire tuition fee of Rs. 1,15,100/- which was refused by the appellant.
3. It is further case of appellant is that on receipt of withdrawal application dated 31.08.2012 the college authorities explained the respondent that since the session has already started and complainant had attended classes, the complainant would be entitled for refund of security money only. In response to this respondent no. 1 without any compulsion and pressure from any person of the college, submitted and undertaking on the same date i.e 31.08.2012 that she would not claim for any refund of tuition fee and allied fee paid by her. After careful scrutiny it was found that she was eligible for refund of allied fee only i.e Rs. 31,200/- and forfeit of tuition fee of Rs. 83,900/- since, the respondent had applied for withdrawal after commencement of the course and attending the classes. Therefore, she was refunded Rs. 31,200/- on 12.10.2012. Thereafter again on 28.01.2013 respondent moved an application for refund of the balance amount Rs. 83,900/- citing poor financial condition of her family. She again sent reminder on 05.03.2013.
4. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that learned District Forum, Patna had no jurisdiction to try this case as only the courts of Dehradun have the jurisdiction. Complainant is not a consumer nor there is any consumer dispute as already decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court that education is not a commodity and educational institution are not providing any kind of service. Learned District Forum while passing order on 30.09.2016 has not considered the various pronouncements of Hon’ble High Courts in connection with the matter of refund of fees collected by universities. In the light of facts and pronouncements of Hon’ble Courts it is justified on the part of the appellants in refusing the issue of tuition fee to the respondent no. 1. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite party/appellants. Learned counsel referred the case of Marshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur. Amit Sadashiv Vaidh Vs. Principle, K.C. College of Engineering, Kopri, Thand & Others.
5. Respondent no. 1 Aishwarya Mishra in absence of her counsel Mr. Amit who is in under jail custody in connection with some criminal case, herself submitted that learned District Forum after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence passed the order in consonance with law. Complainant paid fees to the opposite parties and fulfilled all the criteria as fixed for getting admission in the institute but, complainant got provisional admission. It is admitted fact that respondent is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and she submitted application for cancellation of her admission on reasonable ground. Reminder was also submitted but no positive steps had been taken to redress the genuine grievance. Attendance register annexure A of the appeal was never filed and submitted before the learned District Forum. She had not attended any class of the said institution, so the attendance sheet produced by the appellant is completely fake. Respondent has attached copy of public notice A.D.B. no. AICTE/DPG/06(02)/2009. Section 10(n), 20(1) of AICTE at vide letter no. (U.1)(A) of public grievance redressed mechanism of All India Counsil for Technical Education. According to which Rule binds the opposite parties to return the entire fee amount deposited by student after deducting Rs. 1,000/-. In such circumstance, she prayed to dismiss the appeal. 
6. It is admitted fact that the respondent no. 1 was given provisional admission in the institute of appellant vide letter dated 29.07.2012 issued from appellants institute. Appellant has annexed the attendance sheet for the month of August, September & October of 2012 which is annexure-5 of memo of appeal. From perusal of attendance sheet we find that in the month of August, respondent no. 1 has been shown to have attended the classes on three days only, last attendance date was 29.08.2012. Thereafter, she has been shown absent. Thus it appears that only 3 dates she had attended the classes, though, respondent version is that she never attended any class and the attendance sheet filed by the appellant along with memo of appeal is fake and fabricated. However, if we accept attendance sheet genuine, she attended classes only for 3 days and her admission was not regular. Appellant has not been able to prove that the seat vacated by the respondent remained vacant for the whole academic session and no new admission was taken against that vacant seat.
7. Hon’ble National Commission has held in CGS Indraprashta university Vs. Baibhav, 2009 CTJ, 1240 (NC) as under:

                 “Where the complainant who got admission in another institute sought refund of the fee paid and the institute refunded only part of the fee on the grounds that last date for withdrawal of admission was over, and the opposite party failed to show that the seat remained vacant and that any loss was caused to the institute, hence, directed to return the balance of the fee plus a compensation of Rs. 4,000/-“.

8. So far as undertaking of respondent no. 1 about no claim for refund of deposited fee is concerned, respondents contention is that she had to give the undertaking under duress and compulsion because all the original educational certificates were with the appellant. We find force in the submission of the respondent that she had to give undertaking to get her original certificates.  
9. Several state government have issued circulars on the issue of refund of fees on withdrawal of students from school after admission in view of spate of complaints received from parents. Here also in the present case we find that respondent had produced copy of circular issued from all India Counsels for Technical Education before the learned District Forum. She has also filed this copy of circular (Advt. No. AICTE/DPG/06(02)/2009) along with her notes of argument which reads as under.

          “ In the event of student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the courses, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction processing fee of not more than Rs. 1,000/- only, shall be refunded and returned by the institution to the student/candidate”.

10.     In view of the above facts and circumstances when the admission of the respondent no. 1 was provisional and she applied for cancellation of the admission on the grounds of health, illness and non-availability of medical facility, the appellants cannot forfeit the fee paid by the respondent in view of the circular of AICTE. Noncompliance of direction of AICTE by the appellant is glaring example of deficiency of service on their part.
11.  Respondent no. 1 is a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. District Forum, Patna has jurisdiction to try the case as the cause of action partly arose in Patna too. The appellant has referred many decision but they are not fit to be applied in this case. Every case has its own merit.  Therefore, on the basis of foregoing discussion we come to the conclusion that learned District Forum has passed impugned order in consonance with law. It requires no interference. Appeal is devoid of merit as such it hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.

                                                                                                                                                                 Miss Gita Verma

                                                                                                                                                                      (Judicial Member)

                                                                                                                                                            Mr. Subodh Kumar Srivastava

                                                                                                                                                                   (Judicial Member)

                                                                                                                                                                  Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey

                                                                                                                                                                           (Member)

Md. Fariduzzama