DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 203 of 19-08-2009<br /> Decided on : 23-12-2009 <br /> <br /> Namita Saini aged about 19 years D/o Sh. Pawan Saini R/o Street No. 17, Gandhi Nagar, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Baba Farid College of Engineering & Technology, Mukatsar Road, Bathinda, through its Principal.<br /> 2.Punjab Technical University, Jallandhar, through its Vice Chancellor.<br /> 3.All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, through its Secretary.(Deleted vide order dated 27-08-09)<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Aman Pal Singh, counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Rajiv Gupta, counsel for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she got admission in Baba Farid College, Bathinda, opposite party No. 1, through opposite party No. 2, through counselling conducted on 21-08-2008. Her rank was 017072 and she was admitted in B. Tech. ECE (Electronics & Communication). She deposited Rs. 36,000/- approximately with opposite party No. 1 as fee for first semester on 26-08-08. Thereafter she surrendered the seat on 15-09-2008 through written application and got admission in Yadwindra College of Engineering, Punjabi University Campus. The seat surrendered by her was declared vacant by opposite party No. 1 and the same was subsequently filled and now there are more than 56 students in Ist Semester of B. Tech. (ECE) in the college of opposite party No. 1. As per PTU Prospectus for the year 2008 and clause 8(a) at Page No. 14 “The entire fee collected from the student after deduction of processing fee of Rs. 1,000/- shall be refunded to the student/candidate, withdrawing from the programme provided the seat subsequently falling vacant has been filled by the other candidate on the waiting list by the last date of admission and thereafter.” The complainant asserts that the seat surrendered by her has already been filled but the opposite parties have failed to refund the fee deposited by her despite her repeated requests and ultimately they flatly refused to refund the same. She alleges that she has already taken admission in Yadwindra College of Engineering and deposited huge amount. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to refund admission fee and to pay her compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension, botheration and harassment suffered by her in addition to costs of Rs. 5500/-.<br /> 2. The opposite party No. 1 filed reply taking legal objections that complainant is not consumer; she has no locus standi or cause of action; she does not satisfy the parameters of regulations framed by University governing the matter of refund of fee and complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it has been admitted that complainant was admitted in B. Tech. ECE Course first semester with opposite party No. 1 on 21-08-08 and deposited the requisite fee with it on 26-08-2008. It has been submitted that after admission, she presented application on 8-10-2008 intimating surrender of seat. The opposite party No. 1 has been allotted 60 seats in ECE Branch of B.Tech. Course out of which only 50 seats were filled leaving 10 vacancies. As on 13-09-2009 ,there were two original vacancies plus four surrendered vacancies. The original two vacancies left outstanding were subsequently filled on 22-09-2009. However, 4 vacated seats remained outstanding to be filled and after the complainant surrender her seat on 8-10-2008 vacancies arose to 5 with priority position of surrendered seats as under :<br /> i) Seat vacated by Yashwon Arora on 29-07-2009<br /> ii) Seat vacated by Manpreet Bath in 25-8-08<br /> iii) Seat vacated by Anchal Gupta on 13-09-08<br /> iv) Seat vacated by Charandeep Singh on 13-09-2009<br /> v) Seat vacated by Namitha Saini on 8-10-2008<br /> <br /> Since the seat surrendered by the complainant was never filled by another candidate on the waiting list as mandatorily required by the University Rules and Regulations, the complainant is not entitled to any refund.<br /> 1. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply stating that opposite party No. 1 is affiliated with it and is duly recognised and approved. It has been submitted that as regards the details of admission of the complainant through counselling and deposit of fee is concerned, the said allegations pertain only to opposite party No. 1 and need no reply from opposite party No. 2.<br /> 2. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopy of Identity Check proforma Ex. C-2, photocopies of payment receipts Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5, photocopy of prospectus Ex. C-6 and photocopy of fee structure Ex. C-7.<br /> 3. In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Jasbir Singh Hundal, Principal Ex. R-1, photocopy of Notification Ex. R-2, photocopy of letter Ex. R-3, photocopy of list of admission Ex. R-4, photocopy of list of surrendered seats Ex. R-5, photocopy of Summary Ex. R-6, photocopies of letters Ex. R-7 to Ex. R-15 and photocopy of prospectus Ex. R-16.<br /> 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and written submissions of the parties.<br /> 5. Both the parties relied upon the following Clause 8(a) of the prospectus of Punjab Technical University (Here-in-after referred to as PTU), for the year 2008 :<br /> “8. RULES FOR ADJUSTMENT/REFUND OF FEES<br /> (a) The entire fee collected from the student after deduction of the processing fee of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) shall be refunded and the original documents submitted by the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme provided the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by the other candidate on the waiting list by the last date of admission.”<br /> Thus, as per extracted clause if a student surrenders a seat which is filled, then another candidate on the waiting list is entitled to the refund of the entire fee collected from him/her except processing fee of Rs. 1,000/-. The complainant alleges that the seat vacated by her was filled in by another candidate but she has not produced any evidence on this score. <br /> The opposite party No. 1 had 60 sets for admission to E.C.E. Stream for the session 2008-09 as per Ex. R-2. As per Ex. R-4, opposite party No. 1 has admitted 60 students to the degree course of this stream out of which 9 had surrendered their seats on different dates. Thus, with the admission of 60 students to this stream and 2 seats filled against surrendered seats, 7 seats remained vacant. Contention of the complainant is that she had vacated seat in September, 2008, therefore, any seat filled in thereafter was against the vacancy caused by her although opposite party No. 1 has produced evidence that complainant had vacated seat on 08-10-2008 and thereafter no admission has been made in ECE Branch of B. Tech. Course in that Institute. Hence, it is presumed that she had vacated her seat on 15th September, 2008.<br /> 6. There is no evidence on record that 7 vacant seats were ever filled in. Therefore, any seat fell vacant , it further swelled already vacant pool of 7 seats. Similarly when 1,2 or more seats were filled in , pool of 7 vacant seats was reduced to less than 7. The complainant would have succeeded only if all the 60 seats would have been filled in and any vacancy having occurred subsequently would have been filled in from the pool of surrendered seats. Such a situation never arose. <br /> 7. Even if such a situation occurred, complainant would have to cross another hurdle. She has to prove by documentary evidence that she was first amongst those who had vacated the seats. The complainant alleges that she surrendered the seat on 15-09- 2008. One Yashwon Arora surrendered seat on 29-07-2008, Manpreet Bath on 25-08-08, Anchal Gupta on 13-09-2008 and Charandeep Singh on 13-09-2008. Therefore, she is to contest with them also to prove that she had vacated seat earlier to them. They are not party to this complaint.<br /> 8. Hence, viewed from all angles, this complaint is to fail. Consequently, is is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs the file be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 23-12-2009 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member <br />