Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/862

SHAREE VAISHNAV INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

AKHILESH - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                            

FIRST APPEAL NO. 862 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 02.07.2015 passed in C.C.No.954/2009 by the District Commission, Indore)

                                                    

SHRI VAISHNAV INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE.                                                  …          APPELLANT.

 

              Versus

 

AKHILESH RATHORE & ANOTHER.                                                               …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTINIG PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

 

                                      O R D E R

11.07.2024

 

     Shri Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.

     None for the respondent.

 

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                      Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.954/2009 whereby the complaint filed by the complainants/respondents has been allowed, the opposite party/appellant has filed this appeal.

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant no.1/respondent no.1 who is son of complainant no.2/respondent no.2 took admission in opposite party/appellant institution for the academic session 2008-2009  and had deposited Rs.49,800/-. It is alleged that the institution promised

-2-

him to give admission in one of the branches i.e. Electronic Communication, Civil, Computer Science and Information Technology but the opposite party institution allotted him Textile Branch. Since the complainant no.1 had no interest in said branch. Therefore the complainant no.2 by writing a letter dated 20.02.2009 made a request for cancellation of the said admission of his son but the opposite party did not refund the amount of fee. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking refund of Rs.48,800/- with interest @ 12% p.a. compensation and costs.

3.                The opposite parties resisted the complaint stating that the opposite party institution has no right to give admission to any student without recommendation of counseling authority. The complainant no.1 made an application to counseling authority from where he was provided admission slip dated 30.12.2008 on the basis of which he was to be given admission in one of the branch of engineering and therefore he was provided admission in Textile Engineering. If he was not interested in the said branch he ought not to have deposited the amount. If the complainant could have applied for cancellation of admission during counseling period, he could get refund of some of the fee. After counseling if any student gets

-3-

the admission cancelled, the seat remains vacant and cannot be filled till the whole session.  In such circumstances, the fee cannot be refunded. The complainant is not entitled to get refund of fee. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund Rs.49,800/- after deducting Rs.1,000/- which comes to Rs.48,800/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 07.07.2009 till payment.  Compensation of Rs.4,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also directed to be paid.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant-institution argued that the District Commission failed to appreciate that institution is bound by the directions issued by All India Council of Technical Education and thus after the last date of withdrawal of admission, if the application is not preferred by the student then the amount so deposited shall not be refundable as no other admission could be made in the institution. The complainant after participating in the process of counseling on 07.01.2009 moved an application for cancellation of admission on 20.02.2009 and thereafter moved an application for refund of fee on 26.03.2009. As per

-4-

own admission of the complainant, he was admitted in the institution on 30.12.2008 and deposited fee on 01.01.2009 and got himself admitted in Textile Engineering and therefore he was aware of being admitted in Textile Engineering course and thereafter he moved an application for cancellation of his admission on 20.02.2009 but the refund of fee was not possible and hence was accordingly denied.

7.                He further argued that the District Commission committed manifest illegality in holding the appellant institution guilty of negligence despite the fact that the appellant-institution had followed the directions issued by All India Council of Technical Education and as such the order is not sustainable and deserves to be set-aside. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Fitjee Ltd. Vs Harish Soni II (2016) CPJ 463 (NC), Praveen Rani Vs Punjab School Education Board III (2003) CPJ 164 (NC), Gaurav Govind Tripathi Vs Manager, Divya Prem Sewa Mission and Another 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 556 and Indira Gandhi Medical College & Anr Vs Dr. Prem Seth 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2090 in support of his contentions.

8.                Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant and having gone through the record, we

 

-5-

find that though the educational institutions providing education and other activities to the students do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as per settled law. However, on perusal of record we find that there is a circular of Commissioner, Higher Education, Government of M.P. dated 24.05.2010 (at page 75) stating the guidelines for admissions in Government/Private Colleges of Madhya Pradesh wherein in Clause 15.4 it has been specifically mentioned that in case the student left the college in midsession or his admission cancelled or he has been rusticated, in that case he is entitled to get refund of only caution money and no other fee.

9.                In view of the guidelines of Government of M. P. regarding admissions in Government/Private Colleges of Madhya Pradesh, we are of a considered view the complainant is only entitled to get refund of caution money and no other fee.

10.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the complainant is entitled to get refund of caution money as also the refundable fee mentioned in fee challan/receipt dated 07.01.2009 (P-1). In the said receipt caution money is mentioned as Rs.1,500/- and

-6-

refundable fee is mentioned as Rs.9,500/-.  Accordingly, we modifying the impugned order hereby direct the opposite party/appellant-Institution to pay total sum of Rs.11,000/- (caution money+refundable fee) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 17.07.2009 till payment within a period of two months. We also direct that the opposite party/appellant shall pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months. It is also directed that if the aforesaid amount is not paid within two months, aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.

11.              Accordingly the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.

12.              In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.

 

                 (A. K. Tiwari)               (Dr. Srikant Pandey)       

             Acting President                        Member