Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/16/2014

Banty S/o Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asian Institute of Management and Technology - Opp.Party(s)

None

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                                        Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2014.

                                                                        Date of Institution:9.1.2014.

                                                                        Date of Decision:26.9.2017.

 

Bunty (minor) son of Sh.Ashok Kumar, resident of village Bodla, tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra through his father Ashok Kumar as his next friend.

 

                                                                                                …Complainant.

 

                                                Vs.

Asian Institute of Management and Technology, Kurukshetra Saharanpur Highway, village Dhaurang, district Yamung Nagar.

1. Director Technical Education, Panchkula.
2. Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

 

…Respondents.

 

                                                Complaint under section 12 of the

                                                Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:        SH.SATPAL………..PRESIDENT,

                        SH.S.C.SHARMA,    MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:  None for complainant.

               Sh.Kulwant Singh, Adv. for OP No.1.

              Reply of Op No.2 received by post.

              Sh.Rajan Chawla, Adv. for OP No.3.

 

ORDER:         (SH.SATPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as Ops).

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant was admitted to the college of OP No.1 in the academic year 2012-13 as first year student of Engineering (Civil) for a course of four years.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 10.7.2012 vide receipt no.9350, dated 10.7.2012 on account of New Registration which was to be adjusted in the fee for first year.   The complainant again on admission paid Rs.70,000/- on demand as two years fee vide receipt no.9660, dated 12.9.2012.   The complainant made a request to the university for migration to another college to the Vice chancellor, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and vide letter no.17926, dated 6.9.2013 the Vice Chancellor was pleased to allow another college migration of the complainant by paying migration fee of Rs.25000/-from college of OP No.1 to Geeta Institute of Management and Technology Kanipla (Kurukshetra).  In B-tech 3^rd semester for the session 2013-14.  The complainant paid two years fee to the OP No.1 in advance on demand and the complainant was migrated to another college in 3^rd semester, whereas the OP has taken the fee for 3^rd and 4^th semester also in their institute.  The complainant is entitled to receive Rs.40,000/- from OP No.1 as he was migrated to another college with the permission of the University.  The complainant requested the OP No.1 for refund of Rs.40,000/- paid in excess but the Op No.1 failed to hear the genuine request of the complainant and prayed for directing the OP to refund Rs.40,000/- as fee deposited by the complainant along with interest which comes to Rs.60,000/- in total and further to pay Rs.30,000/- as damages for harassment and mental agony.

3.                     Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed their written statement by admitting the facts that the complainant got admission in the B. tech and deposited the above said amount.  It is submitted that the answering OP came to know regarding Migration of the complainant for the 3^rd semester session 2013-14 only on receipt of letter No.Regn/R/V/13/17925, dated 6.9.2013 from Dy.Registrar, KUK and also admitted the fact of depositing of fee of two years in advance.  It is further submitted that AICTE Public Advt. No.AICTE/DPG/06(027/2009) the complainant is not entitled for the refund of tuition fee, intimating regarding migration of the student was received vide KUK letter dated 6.9.2013, whereas the 3^rd semester of the session 2012.2013 had already been started on 16.8.2013.  The complainant got migrated after the start of 3^rd semester 2012-13 and seat vacated by him remained vacant for 3^rd semester till date.  The jurisdiction of this Forum is not disputed but there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                     The Op No.2, while sending reply dated 28.2.2014 by post alleged that the complainant filed the above titled complaint with regard to refund of migration fee.  The Asian Institute of Management & Technology, village Dhaurang is a private Self Financing Unaided college being managed and run by its management.  The college is affiliated with the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.  The migrations of the student from one Institute to another institute are made by the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.  The complaint is between the complainant and Ops No.1 & 3 and the issue involved in the case is not concerned with the answering OP No.2 and Op No.2 may please be treated as proforma party in the present complaint.

5.                     The OP No.3, while filing the written statement, took some preliminary objections alleging therein that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; the complaint is an abuse of the process of law; the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum.  The OP No.3 has no concern with the fee deposited by the complainant with OP No.1 is no question to refund the same by the answering OP; the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint qua the answering OP, the answering OP is a educational center/institute not service provider as per latest law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3911 of 2003, Tihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Parshad Sinha”. However, the complainant is not a consumer of answering OP under the C.P.Act.  On merits, controverted the plea taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs qua the answering Op.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for OP No.1 and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.   

7.                     After hearing the counsel for the OP No.1 and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear and an admitted fact that the complainant was admitted in the college of the Op No.1 and in the 3^rd semester he was migrated from the college of the Op No.1 to another college as per the direction of Vice Chancellor vide letter No.Regn/R-V/13/17926, dated 6.9.2013 issued by the Deputy Registrar(Regn),Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. There are two issues which are to be decided by this Forum.  Firstly, the plea taken by the OP No.1 that after the migration of the complainant the seat of the OP No.1-college remained vacant for whole of the session, has nowhere been controverted by the complainant and it is settled law that if the seat of the college remains vacant then the migrated or left out student are not eligible for refund of fee.  Secondly, so far as the question of refund of fee of Rs.40,000/- is concerned, the complainant has placed on record two receipts i.e. one for Rs.10,000/- (annexure C.2) another for Rs.70,000/- (annexure C.3), whereas in the pleadings, he has alleged that he has also deposited Rs.25,000/- as migration fee but no receipt of that amount has been placed on record even the relief sought by the complainant for refund of Rs.40,000/- out of Rs.80,000/- deposited by him is without any basis as he has not placed on record any document relating to fee structure or any  copy of prospectus containing terms and conditions relating to refund of balance fee in case of migration of any student from this institution to any other institution.  As per law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case reported in 2015(4) CLT P.332 titled as FIITJEE Ltd. Vs Harish Soni, it has been held that, “Coaching Centre-Refund of fee-Student left the course main stream and claimed refund of fee for the remaining period of the course.  Held that the complainant is not entitled to refund of the fee for the remaining period of one year (As per majority judgment)-Revision Petition allowed-Complaint stands dismissed”. Further as per law laid down by the our Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula in case titled as Samalkha Group of Insituttion & others vs. Wazir Singh reported in 2014(3) CLT P.568 (HR) that dispute between the student and educational institution-Compliant not maintainable”.

8.                     In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

9.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the complaint of the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced in open Court:26.9.2017.

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 

           

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                    (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER.