DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 399 of 2011] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 30.08.2011 Date of Decision : 30.08.2012 -------------------------------- Harsh Goyal s/o Sh. Amrik Goyal, R/o #244, Street No.1, Agar Nagar, Gaushala Road, Sangrur, Punjab – 148 001. ---Complainant VERSUS [1] Chairman, Joint Admission Committee, Punjab Engineering College (PEC), University of Technology, Chandigarh. [2] Director, Punjab Engineering College (PEC), University of Technology, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Harshit Jain, Counsel for Complainant. Sh. Atul Nehra, Counsel for Opposite Parties. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that, the Complainant took admission in B.E. (Metallurgy) of the Opposite Party vide Roll No. 21405701 and had deposited Rs.43,000/- vide Receipt No. 87/73, dated 18.8.2009. The Complainant claims that on 25.8.2009, he informed that officials of the Opposite Parties vide Memo No. 2583 that he does not want to take the seat in the institute of the Opposite Party and requested for the return of the fee deposited. On his request, the Opposite Parties returned Rs.5,000/- on 7.9.2009, vide Cheque No. 918142, against the deposit of Rs.43,000/- made by him. The Complainant claims that as per the guidelines issued by the U.G.C. and the Opposite Parties itself, he was entitled to refund of the full amount of fee paid by him minus Rs.1000/- only. The Complainant served a legal notice dated 28.9.2010 which was replied by the Opposite Parties on 14.10.2010. The Complainant claims that he has not attended any class with the Opposite Parties, and the intimation for leaving the Institute was sent to them within stipulated time as per their own guidelines. The Complainant also claims that because the vacant seat has been filled by the Opposite Parties, he is entitled to the entire amount of fee deposited by him less Rs.1,000/-. The Complainant thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, has prayed for the following relief: - [a] The Opposite Parties be directed to pay the deposited fee of Rs.39,000/- (Rs.44,000/- - Rs.5,000/- = Rs.39,000/-) along with interest @12% per annum; [b] The Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as legal expenses; The complaint of the complainant is duly verified and supported by his short affidavit. 2. The Opposite Parties have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their joint reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed summarily as the Complainant has grossly misled and misstated material facts before this Forum, because the Complainant took admission in the 3rd and final counseling session held on 18.8.2009 in the University for the BE course. As it was the last and final counseling, no further counseling could be held thereafter, as per stipulation in the admission brochure. The Complainant surrendered the seat on 25.8.2009 i.e. much after the final counseling date, thus, the seat vacated by him, could not be filled, thereafter, and remained vacant. It is also stated that the Complainant has categorically stated in his complaint, that the seat vacated by him has been re-filled by the Opposite Parties. Thus, the Complainant is not entitled to refund of the fee deposited by him as the same stands forfeited as per University Rules, except the security deposit of Rs.5,000/-, which stands refunded. On merits, the Opposite Parties have repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the each averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Opposite Parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. The reply of the Opposite Parties is supported by a short affidavit of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Registrar, PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh. 3. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 4. The main allegation of the Complainant raised through the present complaint is with regard to the fact that the Opposite Parties had already filled up the seat vacated by him and as such, he was entitled to entire refund of his fee less Rs.1,000/-. However, the Complainant has failed to bring on record any evidence to this effect. Secondly, the Complainant has also failed to bring on record the waiting list of the students who could have been adjusted in case of is vacating his seat or that the Opposite Parties had thereafter, conducted any other counseling session, so as to prove that the counseling session through which he was given admission, was not the last and final counseling session. We have visited the guidelines at Pg. 19 of the Brochure of the Opposite Parties, pointed out by the Complainant in Para 3(e) of his complaint, and have come across the following portion under the heading “RULES FOR REFUND OF FEES”: - “7.(2) The candidates leaving the course after the last date of counseling or due to shortage of time it is not possible to conduct counseling, the fee would not be refunded to the Candidate. In the interest of academics, there should be no waiting list after the final counseling for semester system courses.” 5. Hence, in the light of clause 7(2), reproduced above, and in the absence of any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, from the side of the Complainant, to prove that the Opposite Parties had already filled up the seat vacated by him, or that Opposite Parties had conducted another session of counseling after the session through which the Complainant had been admitted, the claim of the Complainant has no force. 6. In the light of above observations, we do not find any definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed, without costs. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 7. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 30th August, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
