Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and the modified order dated 28.07.2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission), the petitioner, who was the opposite party in the complaint, has approached this Commission in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 01.09.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar in complaint filed by the respondent Archita Vedi seeking refund of the fee of Rs.2,25,000/- deposited by her besides a compensation of Rs.2 lakh and Rs.50,000/- towards harassment. Complaint was resisted by the petitioner herein interalia on the ground that though to begin with there was no recognition and affiliation of the Institute but subsequently it was so granted, which position was made clear to the complainant and her father at the time of admission. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (consolidated compensation) with 9% interest p.a. within one month of the receipt of the order. In the appeal, the State Commission modifying the said order by making the following observations:- he next question that has to be decided is whether the respondent was liable to pay the fee for the entire course or for the year she took admission? The appellants have placed on file their prospectus for the academic year 2000-2001 and the perusal of the same shows that fee has to be taken in advance at the commencement of every year. Thus, from the prospectus of the appellants itself, it is clear that the fee was to be taken for a year only, whereas the appellants have charged the fee without mentioning as to what was the fee for that year? When the admission was taken? Even if it is presumed that the seat remained unfilled, then the appellants are entitled to retain the fee for that year only during which the respondent left the college, but the appellants have no right to charge the entire fee. Vide receipt dated 15.05.2002 Ex.C3 the appellants charged Rs.55,000/- i.e. Rs.13,000/- as tuition fee and Rs.42,000/- as hotel charges. In all, the appellants received Rs.2,67,000/- in cash from the respondent on 06.06.2002. As such, the appellants are liable to refund Rs.2,12,000/- (267000-55000) along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 06.06. 2002 till payment. The appellants are also liable to refund the proportionate hostel fee of the period during which the respondent did not stay in the hotel. It is made clear that the appellants can charge the hostel fee for the period the respondent stayed in the hostel, but not for the period she did not stay in the hostel. The order of the District Forum requires to be modified. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered her submissions. Once again, it is submitted that the findings of the Fora below are not passed on the correct and proper appreciation of the facts, evidence and material brought on record inasmuch as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. We have noted these submissions only to be rejected because both the Fora below have taken pains in discussing the entire gamut of the controversy and only thereafter, they came to the conclusion that the petitioner / opposite party has committed deficiency in service in regard to the admission of the complainant. The State Commission did well in modifying the order to the above extent. We see no illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this Commission. Dismissed.