Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/161/2014

Hemant Kumar Singh S/o Sh.Baleshwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASIAN Institute Of Management And Technology - Opp.Party(s)

Shakshi Sharma

30 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

Complaint No. 161 of 2014.

Date of institution: 26.03.2014

Date of decision: 30.03.2017

 

Hemant Kumar Singh, aged about 23 years, son of Shri Baleshwar Singh, c/o Sunil Bhutani, House No.69, First Floor, Badal Colony, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                       Versus

ASIAN Institute of Management and Technology, village Dhaurang, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana through its Chairman/Director. 

                                                                                                                     ...Respondent

 

BEFORE:        SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                        Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate for respondent

 

ORDER  (Ashok Kumar Garg, President)

 

1                         The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant took provisional admission under management quota in Computer Science Engineering (LEET) Branch of respondent College (hereinafter referred as OP College) on 20.05.2013. The complainant was directed by the OP college to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- which was paid through Demand Draft No.315715 dated 19.03.2013 in favour of “ASIAN Institute  of Management and Technology” to the OP College. The payment of Rs.20,000/- was confirmed by the OP College vide receipt No.11828 Book No. 13/119 dated 20.05.2013. The complainant being not satisfied with the level of the OP college, communicated his choice of surrender/withdrawal of admission vide his registered letter posted to the OP college on 27.07.2013 along with the request for refund of fees of left over seat. Complainant visited the OP College several times but OP College did not hear the genuine request of the complainant and put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Lastly, prayed that the Op College be directed to refund Rs. 20,000/- i.e. total fee deposited by the complainant to the OP College along with interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP College appeared and filed its written statement by admitting the fact that the complaint is correct to the extent that the college is affiliated to Kurukshetra University. The complainant had moved an application for surrender of his admission after the closing of the admission of the college as such the amount is not refundable. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of his case,  learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as  photocopy of letter written to the Director/Principal/ Chairman as Annexure C-1, photocopy of envelop as Annexure C-2, Postal receipt as Annexure C-3, photocopy of Letter Memo No.3025-3487/RSTES dated 01.08.2013 as Annexure C-4, photocopy of revised Key dates as Annexure C-5, photocopy of certificate issued by ARYANS GROUP OF COLLEGES as Annexure C-6, photocopy of receipt No.11828 dated 20.05.2013 as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Chander Bhan as Annexure RA and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant took the provisional admission under management quota in Computer Science Engineering  (LEET) Branch of the OP institute and deposited Rs.20,000/- vide demand draft No.315715 dated 19.03.2013 which was received by the OP Institute vide receipt No.11828 book No.13/119 dated 20.05.2013, which is duly evident from the photocopy of receipt (Annexure C-7). Further, it is also not disputed that complainant surrendered his seat before attending the OP Institute and requested for refund of the amount of Rs.19,000/- after deducting the Rs.1,000/- as college admission processing fees which is also evident from the copy of letter (Annexure C-1). Even, this fact has been admitted by the OP Institute in Para No.5 of the written statement that complainant has moved an application for surrender of his admission.

8.                     The only plea of the OP Institute is that complainant had moved the application for surrendering his admission after the closing of the admission of the college. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the amount of Rs.19,000/- deposited on account of fee. But this plea of the OP Institute is not tenable as the OP Institute has totally failed to place on file any such document to prove that on what date the admission of the students was closed in their institute. Even, the OP Institute has also not placed on file any cogent evidence that due to surrender of the seat by the complainant, their seat remained vacant i.e. OP Institute could not fill the surrender seat. We have given through the contents of the written statement filed by the OP Institute but not a single iota of word has been disclosed in the written statement that OP Institute has suffered any financial loss on account of surrender of the seat by the complainant. Even, no figure of admitted students and remaining vacant seats has been disclosed in the written statement.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has placed on file circular issued by the Joint Director, Haryana State Technical Education Society Panchkula, Haryana bearing Memo No.3025-3487/HSTES dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure C-4) wherein under clause 1, it has been mentioned that :-

1.         For self-financing institutions:

            The admission/counseling of UG/PG may be completed latest by 15.08.2013 (final cut off date of admission for UG/PG courses) in fair and transparent manner firstly on the basis of respective entrance exam merit (JEE Main/OLET/NATA/CMAT etc.) and only thereafter on the basis of marks of qualifying examination.

10.                   From the above noted facts mentioned in the circular, it is clear that the last date for completing the admission/counseling of UG/PG courses was 15th August, 2013 whereas, as per version of the complainant mentioned in Para No.5 of the complaint he surrendered his seat by sending the registered letter on 27.07.2013 i.e. much prior to the closing date of the admission. We have perused the reply of the Para No.5 of the complaint submitted by OP institute wherein OP Institute is totally silent about the date when they received the request for surrender of the seat. Meaning thereby that the OP Institute received the request letter for surrendering the seat prior to last date of closing of the admission. Further, it is also not disputed that complainant did not attend the classes of the OP Institute even for one day. Further, as per public notice dated 23.04.2007, issued by the University Grant Commission (UGC) it has been reported that:

3. The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grant Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a wait list of the students/candidates. In the event of student/student withdrawing before the starting of course, the wait listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the students after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution/university to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining course and if the seat consequently failing vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.
4. The Universities/Institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The UGC, shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions.

 

11.                   The same view has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case title as “Birla Institute of Technology & Science Pilani and Ors. Vs. Abhishek Mengi, 2013(3) CPC, Page 119” wherein it has been held that:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2 (1)(g) & 21 (b)- Education – Refund of fee- Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.55,000/- for admission in petitioner’s college – But soon thereafter, he was successful to get admission in the Punjab Engineering College (PEC)- He attended the class only on one day- Refund was denied leading to filing of complaint under CP Act- Fora below allowed Complaint- Hence, this revision petitioner has not proved that the seat vacated by the respondent remained vacant- Moreover, respondent did not attend the class, except on one day- Impugned orders are based upon the cogent evidence- Refund of total amount except Rs.8000/- paid for mess advance, justified- Petition dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Further, the same view has also been held in cases law titled as:

1. The Krishna Institute of Education & Technology, Bhil Chhappar, Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) through its chairman Shri Pawan Saini and Ors. Vs. Ms. Ravneet Kaur, 2012 (4) CPR 427 (NC).
2. Registrar, Shanmuga Arts, Science Technology and Research Academy (SASTRA) Deemed University Vs. Consumer Protection Council, Trichy & Anr. II (2015) CPJ 301 (NC).
3. Khaja Educational Society & Ors. Vs. E. Veesha Yadav & Anr. 2013(1)   CPC, Page No.495.

 

12.                   In view of the above discussion and after going through the case law referred above, we are of the considered view that the OP Institute has wrongly and illegally withheld the entire admission fee of the complainant.

13.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP Institute to refund the amount of Rs.19,000/- after deducting the amount of Rs.1,000/- on account of processing charges etc., out of total Rs.20,000/-, deposited by the complainant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Pronounced in open court:

Dated: 30.03.2017.                                                                 

                                                (S.C.SHARMA)                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                           MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                             DCDRF Yamuna Nagar