STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 38 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 30.01.2012 | Date of Decision | : | 13.02.2012 |
1. Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering and Technology, Village Ram Nagar (Near Banur), Distt. Patiala, through its Director. 2. The Regional Officer, All India Council For Technical Education, North Western Regional Office, #310, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh. 3. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, through its Registrar. …..Appellants V e r s u sService Address - Ms. Ashima Soni D/o Sh. Onkar Soni, resident of House No.609, Sector 17, Panchkula. ....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. Vikas Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.12.2011, 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 Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant no.1), as under:- “In view of the foregoing discussion, the present complaint is allowed and OP No.1 is directed as follows: - (a) to refund the entire fee to the complainant deposited by her with OP No.1 vide receipt dated 12.07.2009 (Annexure C-1) after deducting Rs.1,000/- as administrative charges from the said amount; (b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; (c) to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. The aforesaid order be complied with by OP No.1 within a period of one month from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP No.1 shall pay the above said amounts (excluding cost of litigation) along with interest @12% per annum from the date of complainant making application for refund i.e.10.08.2009, till the date of realization, along with the cost of litigation mentioned above”. 2. The complaint against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, was, however, dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that, Ms. Ashima Soni, complainant, got admission in Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering & Technology (Opposite Party No.1), in Information Technology Course, for the Academic Session 2009-2010, and deposited a sum of Rs.43,480/- as fee, vide receipt no.10638 dated 12.07.2009 (Annexure C-1). On 09.08.2009, she also got admission in another college, in Electronics & Communication Engineering Stream. It was stated that the complainant, never attended any class in the College of Opposite Party No.1, and immediately approached Opposite Party No.1, on 10.08.2009, for refund of her fee, but to no avail. Subsequently, she wrote letter Annexure C-4 dated 21.10.2009, to Opposite Party No.1, requesting for the refund of fee. She also wrote letters to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 (Annexures C-6, C-8 to C-11), from 21.10.2009 to 16.02.2010, for taking appropriate action, against Opposite Party No.1, being the superior authorities, but to no effect. Subsequently, a legal notice dated 21.4.2010, Annexure C-17, was served upon the Opposite Parties, but no response, was received, to the same. It was stated that retaining of fee, paid by the complainant, and not refunding the same, without rendering service to her, by Opposite Party No.1, amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice, on its part. 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), for refund of the full fee; payment of compensation; and litigation costs, was filed. 4. Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, in their written version admitted that the complainant took admission in the College of Opposite Party No.1, in Information Technology Course. It was also admitted that she deposited a sum of Rs.43,480/, towards fee, for the said Course, vide receipt no.10638 dated 12.07.2009 (Annexure C-1). It was stated that the complainant left the Course, after joining the same, for a few days. It was further stated that, she surrendered the seat on 4.8.2009, due to personal reasons. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, was ready to render service to the complainant, but she did not avail of the same, thus, it (Opposite Party No.1), was not liable to refund the fee, as per the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter to be referred as the A.I.C.T.E. only), Rules, as the seat surrendered by her, remained vacant for whole of the Session. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averment, were denied, being wrong. 5. On 22.09.2010, Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, and gave statement that Opposite Party No.2, did not want to file any reply, in the present case. 6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 7. When the complaint was fixed for final hearing on 07.12.2011, none put in appearance, on behalf of the Opposite Parties. The District Forum, however, proceeded, to dispose of the complaint, on merits, under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Act (amended up-to-date), in the absence of the Opposite Parties. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, against Opposite Party No.1, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties 1 to 3, though the complaint in the District Forum, was allowed only against Opposite Party No.1/appellant no.1. 10. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, no doubt, the complainant took admission, in the aforesaid course, but she surrendered the seat, after joining it (course), for a few days. He further submitted that, the seat vacated by her remained vacant throughout. He further submitted Opposite Party No.1, was ready to render service, to the complainant, but, once she surrendered the seat, of her own accord, which remained vacant, she, herself, did not avail of the services. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, Opposite Party No.1, was not liable to refund the fees, for which, a request was made by the complainant, to it (Opposite Party No.1). He further submitted that, neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. 12. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, 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. Undisputedly, the complainant took admission, in Information Technology course, in the Institute of Opposite Party No.1. It is also not disputed, that she deposited Rs.43,480/-, as fees, for the aforesaid course, vide receipt no.10638 dated 12.07.2009 Annexure C-1. The complainant, in the meanwhile, got admission in some other course, and it was on account of this reason, that she approached Opposite Party No.1 on 10.08.2009, through a written request, for refund of the fees. It was averred by the complainant, in the complaint, as also in the affidavit, filed by her, in the shape of evidence, that she did not attend the course even for a single day in the Institute of Opposite Party No.1. No evidence was produced, by Opposite Party No.1, to the effect, that the complainant, attended the course, even for a single day. Reliance was placed on Annexure R-1, by Opposite Party No.1, showing course-wise/branch-wise intake seats; the candidates who were admitted through management; the candidates who were admitted through counselling; and the seats, which remained vacant in relation to various courses, including the course, in which the complainant got admission, and left thereafter. However, this document was neither signed by any authorized signatory(s), on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, nor there is any certificate appended on this document, to the effect that it was prepared on the basis of record, allegedly maintained by Opposite Party No.1. Even the true copies of the original record were not produced. Under these circumstances, this document has no evidentiary value. No reliance, therefore, can be placed, on this document, to come to the conclusion, as to whether, the seat vacated by the complainant, remained vacant throughout. The District Forum, was also right, in discarding Annexure R-1. From Annexure C-15, a document placed, on record, in the shape of notice, issued by the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, Kapurthala Road; with respect to Counselling for the existing vacant seats in CET-09/AIEEE-09, on merit basis, it is evident, that Punjab Technical University was to hold joint Counselling for admission in CET-09/AIEEE-09, on merit basis, to the existing vacant seats for 1st year B.Tech/B.Pharma Courses, of all Colleges affiliated to the PTU Jalandhar, GNDU Amritsar, PAU Ludhiana and Punjab University Patiala w.e.f. 07.09.09(Monday). From this document, it is clear, that the Counselling for the vacant seats was yet to be held by the PTU w.e.f. 07.09.09(Monday). This clearly goes to show that the Course had not yet started, when the complainant applied for the refund of fees on 10.08.2009. According to the A.I.C.T.E. Guidelines, in the event of student/candidate withdrawing before the start of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given admission, against the vacant seat. The entire fee, collected from the student(s), after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only), shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Even, as per these Instructions, extract whereof is given above, since the complainant left the course, without attending the same, even for a single day, before the start of the same, as is evident from Annexure C-15, referred to above, it was the duty of Opposite Party No.1, to refund the fee, deposited by the complainant, vide receipt Annexure C-1, after deducting Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only), towards processing fee. Not only this, even, it is evident from Annexures C-13 dated 30.12.2009 and C-14 dated 27.01.2010, that the A.I.C.T.E, also directed Opposite Party No.1, to take action and refund the fee, as per its guidelines. Despite that, Opposite Party No.1, did not refund the fee. No doubt, the complainant left the seat, of her own accord, yet Opposite Party No.1, could not retain the full fees, deposited by her, especially, when the Course had not yet started. Opposite Party No.1, was bound by the guidelines of the A.I.C.T.E, referred to above. By not refunding the fee, deposited by the complainant, by Opposite Party No.1, in accordance with the guidelines of the A.I.C.T.E., it indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum, was also right in coming to this conclusion. The findings of the District Forum, being correct, are affirmed. 13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants. 14. The order passed by the District Forum, in accepting the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 and dismissing the same against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, 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. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by appellant No.1, 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. 16. The appeal filed by appellants No.2 and 3, is dismissed, with no order as to costs, being not maintainable. 17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced. February 13, 2012 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Rg
| HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |