JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

The complainant/respondent took admission in B.Tech (Computer Science and Engineering) Course of the petitioner university in the academic year 2010-11 depositing a sum of Rs.53,000/- vide receipt dated 03.08.2010.  As per the counseling schedule notified by the petitioner university, the admission could be withdrawn latest upto 27.08.2010, though the classes were to commence on 02.08.2010 and all the students taking admission during the first counseling were to report to their respective college/institution on 02.08.2010 or on the date following the day of admission, in case the admission was granted after 02.08.2010. 

2.      The complaint, who had been given admission in Guru Premsukh Memorial College of Engineering, did not report to the said college nor did he deposit the fee at the said college till 30.11.2010.  Vide letter dated 30.04.2012, the aforesaid college sought cancellation of the aforesaid student.  Admission was accordingly cancelled on 02.05.2012.  The amount deposited by the complainant having not been refunded, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking refund of the said amount. 

3.      The District Forum directed the petitioner university to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant after deducting a processing fee of Rs.1,000/-.  A sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded as compensation to the complainant alongwith another sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation. 

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner university approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission. 

5.      The whole of the case of the complainant is based upon a circular dated 23.04.2007 issued by University Grants Commission.  The said circular, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:         

6.      It would thus be seen that the entire amount collected from the student was required to be refunded after deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/- in a case where the student withdrew from the programme.  In the event of the student leaving after joining the course and the seat so vacated by him being filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the university was to return the fee collected from him with proportionate deduction of monthly fee and proportionate hostel fee wherever applicable. 

7.      The purpose of aforesaid circular in my view is not to allow unjust enrichment of the institution/university where a student withdraws from the programme, provided that he withdraws from the programme by the last date stipulated for this purpose or before the date scheduled for joining the course.  In the event of the student leaving the course after joining it, he would be entitled to deduction of proportionate fee and other charges, provided that the seat vacated by him is filled up by admitting another student.  In the event of not joining a course at all, he would be entitled to refund of the entire fee and other charges paid by him after deduction of the processing fee, provided that the seat so vacated on account of withdrawal by him, is filled up by the university/institution.  However, in the event of his not joining the course and seat vacated by him also not being filled up, he is not entitled to any refund at all since the university cannot be deprived of the fee which it had collected against the seat allotted to such a student.  If the entire amount deposited by him is refunded, without filling up the seat vacated by him, it would result in substantial loss to the university/institution which made arrangements including providing infrastructure for all the students who are granted admission in the course.  For instance, if there is a batch of 25 students in a course and the university is able to fill up all the 25 seats, despite withdrawal by one or more students, it must necessarily refund the amount deposited by the students withdrawing from the admission so that there is no unjust enrichment to it.  However, if the seat so vacated by such a student remains vacant on account of late withdrawal of admission by him, the university, in my view, is not required to refund the amount deposited by him.  Asking the university to refund the said amount would neither be fair nor reasonable in such an eventuality.          

8.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.