STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

MCM D.A.V.  College for Women, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh, through its Principal.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

Anmol Goyal d/o Sh. Arun Goyal, #354, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.Arun Kaundal, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.12.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Party, as under:-

“In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed. OP is directed to return the remaining amount refundable, as per the guidelines of the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration, so that the total refunded amount comes to 90% of the tuition fee deposited by the Complainant. The OP will also pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant.

The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they would be liable to pay interest on the decretal amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order, till the date of actual payment, besides paying Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation”. 

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was a student of MCM D.A.V.  College for Women, in the B.Com course. She paid a sum of Rs.22,660/-, as fee, for B.Com (2nd year) for the session 2010-2011, on 7.7.2010. In the meanwhile, the complainant, also got admission in S.D. College, Sector 32, Chandigarh, on 16.7.2010. Accordingly, she requested the Opposite Party, for refund of fee, deposited by her, as she had not attended a single class for B.Com (2nd year).     It was stated that the seat vacated by the complainant, was also filled up, by the next person, on the waiting list, maintained by the Opposite party. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, refunded only Rs.13,596/-, to the complainant. It was further stated that, as per the guidelines, issued by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter to be referred as the UGC only), the institutions and universities, in the public interest were to maintain the waiting list of students/candidates, and, in the event of any student admitted, withdrew before the start of the course, the candidate in the waiting list, was to be given admission, against the vacant seat. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, was, thus, liable to refund the entire fee, paid by the complainant, after deduction of Rs.1000/-, towards the processing fee, as she withdrew from the course before the start thereof. It was further stated that despite many requests, the Opposite Party, did not refund the fee, as per the UGC guidelines. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.               On notice, the Opposite Party, put in appearance, and filed its written version, wherein it was stated that the complainant took admission in B.Com (1st year), in the session 2009-10. It was further stated that the complainant chose to leave the college, of her own accord, in B.Com (2nd year). It was further stated that  no advertisement was issued for direct admission to B.Com (2nd year). Accordingly, there was no waiting list and the seat vacated by the complainant,  remained unfilled in B.Com (2nd year), as well as B.Com (3rd year). It was further stated that the guidelines issued by the UGC, were adopted by the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration, vide order Annexure R-6 dated 29.03.2007. It was further stated that since the complainant had joined a three year degree course, starting from July, 2009 and left the same after completing one year, the seat vacated by her, remained vacant and she was refunded 60% of the fee, deposited by her. It was further stated that since the Opposite Party refunded the fee, as per the order, Annexure R-6, vide which the UGC guidelines were adopted by the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration, there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

7.               We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.               The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that no doubt, the complainant took admission in B.Com (1st year) in the year 2009, but in B.Com (2nd year) for the session 2010-2011, she left the course of her own accord, after depositing the fee. He further submitted that the seat vacated by her, remained vacant, and, as such, according to the UGC guidelines, adopted by the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration, 60% of the fee was refunded to her. He further submitted that there was, therefore, no deficiency, in service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant was entitled to the refund of 90% of fee, deposited by her. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to set aside.

9.               After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the complainant took admission in B.Com (2nd year), for the session 2010-2011, after successfully completing, B.Com (1st year), for which, she had deposited the fee. Since she got admission in another college, she moved an application, for the refund of fee, copy whereof is Annexure A-3 dated 16.07.2010. No evidence was produced by the Opposite Party, as to when the course started. However, according to the complainant, she left the course B.Com (2nd year), before it started. There is, no dispute, that the Opposite Party, is governed by the guidelines, annexure R-4, issued by the UGC, New Delhi. These guidelines were duly adopted  by the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration, vide Annexures R-5 and R-6. According to Annexure R-6, student(s) requesting for refund after admission, where no class had been attended, and intimation about the cancellation of their candidature was received by the concerned College,  prior to the close of admissions, 90% of the tuition fee was to be refunded. In the instant case, admittedly, as per the evidence, the complainant did not attend any class of B.Com (2nd year) and an intimation, about leaving the course, was also received by the Opposite Party, before the close of admission, as no document was produced by it (Opposite Party), that the admissions had already closed. The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that, since no service, was provided to the complainant, in the 2nd year Course of B.Com, by Opposite Party, non-refund of 90% of the tuition fee, as per  the UGC guidelines, adopted by the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration, vide annexure R-6, was illegal. In our considered opinion, the appellant/Opposite Party, indulged into unfair trade practice, by not refunding 90% of the tuition fee, deposited by the complainant, as per Annexure R-6. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, deserves to be upheld.

10.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

11.            The order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

February 1, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg