DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 83 of 17-03-2009<br /> Decided on : 20-08-2009 <br /> <br /> Narinder Kumar S/o Sh. Sukhdev Ram R/o H. No. 32263, Street No. 16, Partap Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot through its Chairman/Registrar.<br /> 2.The Principal Adesh Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Barnala Road, Bathinda.<br /> 3.Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Barnala Road, Bathinda through its Chairman<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. G.S. Chugh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate,<br /> counsel for opposite party No. 1<br /> Sh. Balwant Singh Mann, Advocate<br /> counsel for opposite parties No. 2 & 3 <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the opposite parties with the allegations that the complainant after passing his PMET 2008 attended a counselling held on 27-09-2008 at Government Medical College, Patiala. He was alloted provisional admission by opposite party No. 1 with permission to shift from Sant. S. Bathinda (B.A.M.S.) to Adesh Bathinda (opposite party No. 3). The opposite party No. 2 published an advertisement for some seats in BDS course in 'Daily Tribune' dated 16-09-2008 and 23-09-2008. He applied for admission in BDS course and got admission on 27-09-2008 and deposited Rs. 63,250/- (Rs. 40250/ being shifted from Saint S. Ayurvedic College Kotshamir and Rs. 23,000/- paid in cash). Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 28,000/- more which were deposited by him. However, opposite party No. 2 did not issue any receipt. When he requested for receipt, he was told that he would be given receipt only after payment of more amount of Rs. 25,500/- on account of transportation and hostel charges. He informed opposite party No. 2 that he is a permanent resident of Bathinda and residing with his parents and therefore, he has no need to avail transport or hostel facility but pressure was put on him to deposit the amount of Rs. 25,500/-. The complainant further avers that due to malpractice on the part of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 for extorting money on one pretext or the other and their refusal to issue receipt for Rs. 28,000/- caused unnecessary mental tension and harassment to him as he had no funds to meet such unwanted demand of money of opposite parties No. 2 & 3. He asserts that when he was put to unnecessary harassment, he surrendered seat and requested opposite party No. 2 for refund of fee vide his letter dated 06-10-2008. He made repeated requests to opposite party No. 2 for refund of Rs. 63,250/- plus Rs. 28,000/- totaling to Rs. 91,250/- as not only the complainant but his entire family members were put to unnecessary mental torture, agony and harassment besides jeopardising the chance of passing the course of BDS due to malpractice, deficiency in service and also fraud played upon the complainant. Under these circumstances, the complainant did not attend the classes and he surrendered the seat on 06-10-2008. He claims refund of the aforesaid amount besides compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.00 Lacs and litigation expenses as well.<br /> 2. The allegations of the complainant were contested by all the three opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 raised preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; controversy is not a consumer disputes and the complainant has not disclosed the true facts. On merits, all the allegations levelled by the complainant are not admitted as correct.<br /> 3. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 filed a joint reply raising inter-alia preliminary objections that it is not a consumer dispute; complaint is not maintainable in the present form; it is not a case of deficiency of service; the complainant has concealed true and material facts and complaint has been filed on false and forged grounds. On merits, while denying the allegations of the complainant, they averred that the complainant has not sought admission directly with opposite party No. 1 rather counselling was conducted by opposite party No. 1. The complainant appeared in PMET 2008 and counselling was conducted on 27-09-2008 at Government Medical College, Patiala and he was allowed provisional admission by opposite party No. 1 with direction to shift to St. S. Bathinda to opposite parties No. 2 & 3 (Adesh Institute) and he deposited the required fee with opposite party No. 1 and the same was paid by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 3. The complainant reported in the Institute on 29-09-2008 and deposited a sum of Rs. 21,500/- in the form of college security against a payment receipt. He surrendered his seat on 06-10-2008 against the rules as admission process was already completed on 30-09-2008. Seat left by the complainant remained vacant and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any refund as he has surrendered the seat after 30-09-2008. The complainant has caused great financial loss to them. They further aver that complainant never deposited a sum of Rs. 28,000/- with them. He deposited only an amount of Rs. 21,500/- in the form of security for which a receipt was issued to him.<br /> 4. Both the parties in order to prove their respective contentions have led respective evidence. <br /> 5. The complainant Sh. Narinder Kumar has filed his affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopy of Prospectus PMET 2008 Ex. C-2, photocopy of legal notice Ex. C-3, photocopy of provisional admission slip Ex. C-4, photocopy of payment of receipt Ex. C-5, photocopy of letter dated 25-09-2009 Ex. C-6, photocopies of cuttings of newspaper Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8, photocopy of Pamphlet Ex. C-9, another affidavit of complainant Ex. C-10, photocopy of letter dated 23-10-2008 Ex. C-11, postal receipt Ex. C-12, photocopy of letter dated 23-10-2008 Ex. C-13 and photocopy of letter dated 06-10-2008 Ex. C-14.<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Dr. Rajiv Aggarwal, Principal Ex. R-1, photocopy of list of students Ex. R-2, photocopy of prospectus of PMET 2008 Ex. R-3, photocopy of letter dated 6.10.08 Ex. R-4, photocopy of payment receipt Ex. R-5, photocopy of letter dated 19-06-2008 Ex. R-6, affidavit of Dr. D S Sidhu, Registrar Ex. R-7, photocopy of letter dated 30-10-08 Ex. R-8, photocopy of letter dated 25-11-08 Ex. R-9, photocopy of final statement of fee Ex. R-10 to Ex. R-11, photocopy of letter dated 7-1-09 Ex. R-12 have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.<br /> 8. From the evidence of the parties as has been referred to herein above, it appears that the parties are not at dispute with regard to the fact that opposite parties No. 2 & 3 have received an amount of Rs. 63,250/- on account of fee etc., from opposite party No. 1 on behalf of complainant on his joining BDS course with opposite parties No. 2 & 3 on 27-09-2008. The only dispute is with regard to the payment of Rs. 28,000/-. According to the complainant he was compelled to make payment of Rs. 28,000/- on his joining opposite parties No. 2 & 3 and when he demanded receipt, he was told that receipt would be issued to him after he will deposit another sum of Rs. 25,500/- for transportation and hostel charges. He was forced by opposite parties No. 2 & 3 to deposit an amount of 25,500/-. Not only the complainant but his parents were put to unnecessary mental tension by demanding this money. The complainant was not in a position to make this payment. He also made clear to opposite party No. 2 that he is a permanent resident of Bathinda and therefore, he is not requiring facility of transportation and hostel. He made repeated verbal as well as written requests for the issuance of receipt of Rs. 28,000/- paid by him, but the receipt was not issued to him. The opposite party No. 2 continued to built pressure on the complainant for payment of an additional amount of Rs. 25,500/- resultantly, he out of frustration, surrendered the seat vide letter dated 6-10-08 Ex. C-14.<br /> 9. The plain reading of the contents of letter Ex. C-14 makes it clear that the facts put forwarded by the complainant appears to be neither false or fictitious nor manipulated in any manner. These facts also find support from the contents of affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-10 and letters Ex. C-11 and Ex. C-13 which were sent through registered postal vide receipts Ex. C-12. <br /> 10. The contention raised on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 is that the selection/admission process was completed on 30-09-2008 and complainant surrendered the seat on 6-10-08 and as such, as per sub rule (j) of Rule 10 General Conditions of Prospectus Ex. R-3, the complainant is not entitled for any refund.<br /> 11. We have considered the arguments as well as sub rule (j) of Rule 10 General Conditions of Prospectus Ex. R-3, which reads as under :<br /> “10. General Conditions<br /> (j) In order to ensure completion of the prescribed courses(s ) and period of study as well as commencement of examination(s) in time, no admission(s) adjustment(s) shall be made after 30th September of corresponding year regardless of any vacancy(ies) that might exist or might arise thereafter for any reason whatsoever.”<br /> 12. The above said rule does not speak about the refund of fee or adjustment of amount received by the Institute or payable by a candidate. It only speaks out that in order to ensure completion of prescribed course and commencement of examination in time, no admission or adjustment shall be made after 30th September meaning thereby that students will not be admitted or transferred from one Institute to another Institute for adjustment after 30th September so that the period of study be maintained and examinations be not delayed/conducted in time. The contention raised on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 that in view of this Rule, complainant cannot be allowed refund of fee, appears to be totally misconceived.<br /> 13. Here the question arises as to why the complainant who got admission in a course of his own choice in a Institute situated just close to Bathinda where from he hales woud surrender his seat in normal circumstances or he did so under forced circumstances ? If he did so under forced circumstances, who is liable for creating such forced circumstances ? <br /> 14. From the circumstances as pleaded in the complaint supported by the affidavit of the complainant and the facts narrated by the complainant in the documents Ex. C-3, Ex. C-11, Ex. C-13 and Ex. C-14, it reveals that the circumstances were built not by any other person than the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 who forced the complainant to surrender his seat on 16-10-08 vide his letter Ex. C-14 only after 6 days of the commencement of the course as he was put to mental torture when he demanded receipt of amount of Rs. 28,000/- paid by him and an amount of Rs. 25,500/- was further demanded from him as transportation and hostel charges. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M K Gupta AIR 1994 Supreme Court 787 that :-<br /> “The provisions of the Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the court while construing the provisions of such a Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to attempted objective of the enactment.”<br /> 15. From the facts and circumstances as are emerging from the evidence of the parties as referred to herein above, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant was forced to surrender his seat under forced circumstances putting his entire carrier in jeopardy. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 have extorted and received an amount of Rs. 28,000/- from the complainant without issuing any receipt which itself amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The act of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 by calling upon the complainant to pay another sum of Rs. 25,500/- for transportation and hostel charges especially under the circumstances when the complainant was a resident of Bathinda and he was not in need of these facilities, further amounts to unfair trade practice. If he was not in need of these facilities, why and under which rule, he was asked to pay this amount which itself amounts to creating abnoxious atmosphere for a newly admitted student which can only be defined misuse of authority and process of rules and regulations by adopting unfair trade practice.<br /> 16. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that complainant is not only entitled for the refund of the amount of Rs. 28,000/- which he paid to opposite parties No. 2 & 3 and they did not issue receipt to him, but also entitled for the refund of total amount of fee i.e. Rs. 63,250/- which he paid for his studies but due to abnoxious atmosphere created by opposite parties No. 2 & 3 by raising illegal demand of Rs. 25,500/- and putting the complainant to unnecessary harassment he was forced to surrender his seat even at the cost of his carrier. The facts and circumstances of the case further reveal and prove that not only the complainant but his parents were also put to unnecessary mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience and therefore, complainant is also entitled for a reasonable and sufficient amount of compensation for pain and sufferings he has undergone due to act and conduct of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 which we assess to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.<br /> 17. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 18. In the result, the complaint is accepted against opposite parties No. 2 & 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 1. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are directed to refund an amount of Rs. 91,250/- ( Rs. 63,250/- + Rs. 28,000) to the complainant and also pay to him an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be indexed and consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 20-08-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br />