PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER (ORAL) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner-Himachal College of Education seeks to challenge the concurrent finding and order of the two consumer fora below directing the petitioner-college to refund the amount of Rs.30,685/- to the respondent-complainant along interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint with a litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the said concurrent order mainly on three grounds. His first contention is that the UGC circular dated 23rd of April, 2007 relied upon by the fora below would not be applicable to the facts of this case as the circular did not have any retrospective effect. The second ground advanced is that the seat vacated by the respondent-complainant was not filled up and, therefore, it has caused financial loss to the institute, and thirdly that the petitioner-college had no role to play as the admissions were regulated as per the candidates sponsored by the H.P. University and the fee was remitted to them. We have noted the submissions of the learned counsel only to be rejected for the simple reason that irrespective of whether the UGC circular was there on the date the respondent-complainant sought the refund of the fee, the principle of natural justice demands that if a student has not even attended the course for a day, it cannot be said that she availed any service of the institute. She was, therefore, entitled to the refund of the fee except, of course, the nominal processing fee for her application etc., which can be quantified at Rs.1000/-, which the District Forum has correctly done. The contention that the seat vacated by the respondent-complainant was not filled up cannot be sustained in view of the finding of the District Forum, which states as under :- “Hence in these circumstances when the complainant did not pursue the B.Ed. course in the institute of OP No. 3 and the seat fell vacant was later on filled in by OP No.3, we find no justifications to withhold the entire dues/fees deposited by complainant with OP No. 3 as the complainant did not pursue studies in the institution of OP No. 3 for B.Ed. course.” Obviously, the petitioner-college had failed to produce any evidence before the District Forum to prove that the seat vacated by the respondent-complainant indeed had not been filled up. To contend that the said seat remained vacant at this stage without any proof, therefore, cannot be accepted. Insofar as the blame on the H.P. University is concerned, it has been clearly held that no fee was paid to the University by the respondent-complainant and even if it is accepted that candidates were to be sponsored by the University, there is no evidence to show that on the withdrawal of the respondent-complainant from the course, the petitioner-college approached the H.P. University to sponsor any waitlisted candidate. The revision petition, therefore, is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. | 
