Both the revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and point of law involved in them is the same. Facts are being taken from RP No.4074/2012. Petitioner took admission in bio-medical engineering course in the respondent institute and deposited a fee of Rs.45,000/-. According to him, he was given an assurance by the respondent that if he wants to change the course, the same will be facilitated by the respondent. Later on, petitioner requested the respondent to change his course to Electronics & Communication Technology, but the respondent refused to do so. Petitioner requested the respondent to refund the fee of Rs.45,000/- which was not agreed to. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum. -3- District Forum held that since the petitioner had applied for refund of fee after two months of the start of the course, petitioner was not entitled to get the refund of entire money; that he was entitled to refund of only caution money. Accordingly, District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to refund the caution money. For rest of the amount, complaint was dismissed. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum and directed the respondent to refund, in addition to caution money, 50% of the fee as well. Rs.1500/- were awarded by way of costs. Respondent has accepted the order passed by the State Commission. State Commission in its order has observed as under: “So far as the question of the return of fees is concerned, we have considered this point. The main argument from the side of the opposite party had been that due to leaving the institute by the complainant in the middle of the session, their two seats remained vacant; hence they cannot be bound to refund the fees on this ground. Simultaneously they have produced the -4- citation in I(2009) CPJ 10 (NC) Apeejay Institute of Management and Information Technology vs. Prashant Ashok. According to our view, facts of this case are not of much assistance here because in that case the complainants did not attend the college at any point of time after taking admission and the notices were issued by the institute them continuously. In addition to this, in that case the written undertaking of the kind that if the student withdraw himself during the course from the institute, the institute will be entitled to the fees. Another citation has been produced by ld. Counsel for opp.party in case of 2010 DNJ (SC) 710 titled as Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Sujeet Kaur, which is not applicable in this case due to different facts and circumstances. It is correct that the complainants have left the said course after two months out of their own will but the opp.party which is an educational institution should not only see its commercial objective that they will suffer loss of fees. Complainants have undergone the course for two months but they were not satisfied and they wanted to change the same but the inability was expressed by the respondent’s institute in this. The fact of remaining two seats vacant for whole year seems to be a commercial and profit making completely. Complainants have deposited Rs.35,000/- towards tuition fee, Rs.6000/- towards development -5- charges and Rs.4000/- towards other charges. After leaving the course, the complainants have taken admission in some other college in next year and they lose their one year, they have suffered financial loss also. In this situation we understand that when the complainants have not undertaken that course for the full year, then the order to refund 50% fee to them will be just in the interest of justice.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Since the petitioner had asked for refund of the amount after two months, the seat vacated by him could not have been filled in by the respondent institute. Respondent was not entitled to the refund of full fee. Dismissed. | 
