Punjab

StateCommission

A/420/2017

Rashmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences - Opp.Party(s)

By Post

09 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,      PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

 

                   First Appeal No.420 of 2017

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 06.06.2017

                                                          Date of Decision   :09.10.2017

 

 

Rashmi d/o Sh. Sham Sunder r/o C-85, New Cantt Road, Faridkot.

 

 

                                                                           Appellant/Complainant    

                Versus

 

1.      The Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences        Sadiq Road, Faridkot.

 

2.      The Principal, University College of Physiotherapy, Baba Farid        University of Health Sciences Sadiq Road, Faridkot.

 

 

                                                              Respondents/Opposite parties

 

 

First Appeal against order dated 07.02.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Faridkot

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For appellant                   : None

         

         

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          This appeal filed by appellant was received through post in this Commission, challenging order dated 07.02.2017 of District Forum, Faridkot, dismissing her complaint. This Commission issued notice to appellant to appear in person or through authorized representative for hearing at admission stage of the appeal, but appellant has not appeared and on the basis of presumptive service, as contemplated by law to be a valid service, it was held that she has been served but has not appeared in person or through authorized representative to argue the appeal at admission stage.

2.      We proceed to decide this appeal at its admission stage on the basis of evidence after examining the pleadings and evidence of the parties on the record. The record of District Forum has been received. Shortly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by Rashmi/Complainant before District Forum are that she applied for admission in Physiotherapy in the year 2014 in the colleges under the supervision of OP no.1. As per the instructions contained in the prospectus for admission to BPT Course, the personal appearance of the candidate was essential at the time of counseling and candidate was to produce all the documents/educational testimonials in original for verification by the selection committee. The complainant deposited fee of Rs.20,000/- for admission to the course of physiotherapy with OP no.2. She appeared for counseling on 06.08.2014 and after examined her original documents/educational testimonials in original, OP no.2 stated that her medical checkup would be conducted only after retaining her original educational testimonials.  In case, she failed to deposit her original certificates, her seat would stands cancelled. OP no.2 stated to her in writing that if she was not interested, she should give it in writing. She has filed complaint praying that OPs be directed to refund her admission fee Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit and      Rs.5 lac as compensation for mental harassment be also paid to her by OPs.

3.      Upon notice, OPs contested the complaint before District Forum by averring that she did not appear for medical checkup nor deposited her original educational testimonials, as required by OP no.1/ University for completion of her admission process. The fee once deposited, cannot be refunded, as it is non-refundable. All documents in original are retained for verification by the University and candidate is required to deposit them in original before his/her medical checkup.  The complainant was not interested in BPT seat and OPs kept that seat vacant for her because she had deposited fee for same. OPs contested the complaint on above premises and prayed for its dismissal.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Vice Chancellor Dr. Raj Bahadur Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Faridkot dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 07.02.2017. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Faridkot, complainant now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have gone through pleadings of both the parties and also examined the evidence on the record at admission stage of the appeal.

6.      OPs wrote letter to complainant on 19.09.2014, vide Ex.C-3 to the effect that the office be made aware by her in writing latest by 26.09.2014, if she was interested to get her seat vacated or not. The complainant gave reply Ex.C-4 to letter dated 12.08.2014 that her admission has already been cancelled for above seat and she requested OPs to permit her to deposit the original certificates later on. The complainant also sought information under RTI in this regard. Ex.C-9 is the prospectus issued by OP no.1/Baba Farid University of Health Sciences governing relationship between the parties. Clause 9 of the prospectus lays down that "personal appearance of candidate is essential at the time of his/her counseling. Candidate will produce all documents/testimonials in original for verification by the Selection Committee, failing which, candidate will not be considered for counseling." The complainant has not complied with Clause 9 of prospectus. Ex.OP-7 is issued by OP no.1/University in this regard. The complainant herself is to blame and cannot put any blame on OPs. Clause 10 of this prospectus Ex.OP-7 further lays down that fee once deposited will not be refunded/adjusted in any case. Clause 10 of prospectus Ex.C-7 makes it clear that fee deposited by candidate is not refundable. The parties are governed by the terms and conditions of prospectus Ex.C-7 pertaining to admission in the course of Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT). We are unable to find any patent illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum calling for any interference in this appeal for admitting it for regular hearing.

7.      As a result of our above discussion, since appellant despite service has not appeared at admission stage of the appeal either in person or through authorized agent and from perusal of evidence and pleadings of the parties on the record, we find no ex-facie illegality or material irregularity in the order of District Forum calling for admission of this appeal for regular hearing. Consequently, appeal is dismissed in limine at admission stage only.

8.      Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

9.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

 

                                                               (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

                                                                               MEMBER

October 9  , 2017                                                                

(ravi)