Complainant Amandeep Kaur, through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the fee of Rs.15,000/- to her. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that she had approached the college of opposite parties after qualifying the entrance exam conducted by Guru Nanak Dev University and applied for admission in B.Ed course through online for the sessions 2016-18 due to proximity of institution of opposite parties from the place of her residence. Opposite party gave advertisement of their institution in the newspapers of the facilities they are providing to the students alongwith transportation facility. She got deposited a fee of Rs.15,000/- with the opposite parties on 4.8.2016 and the new session was to start from 16 August 2016 for which she approached the office of the opposite parties for the facility of transportation of their college from her place of residence which they promised to provide at the time of deposit of admission fee. She has further pleaded that on 11.8.2016 opposite parties refused to keep their works and backed out from their promise and hood winked her. She made an application for cancellation of her admission in B.Ed and refund of fees but opposite parties refused to refund her fee and threatened her to do anything and outraged her modesty by using vituperative language. It is next pleaded that the non refund of admission fee by the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. A legal notice was issued to the opposite party but the opposite party gave no reply to the same. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel but did not file reply to the main complaint and vakalatnama of advocate, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.11.2016. Again on 16.12.2015 Sh.Aseem Mahajan Advocate has appeared on behalf of opposite parties and filed vakalatnama alongwith application for joining the proceedings which was allowed vide order of District Forum.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Capt.Malkit Singh Ex.C2, alongwith other documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
5. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/ document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant had taken her admission in the B.Ed. course for the academic year 2016-18 at the opposite party college and had also deposited the First session fee of Rs.15,000/- on 04.08.2016 whereas the session was to start with effect from 16.08.2016. At the time of admission the complainant was assured that paid transport to-and-fro facility shall be provided to the B.Ed. students but somehow that facility could not be materialized and thus the complainant immediately applied on 11.08.2016 for ‘cancelation’ of her admission along with return/refund of her admission ‘fee’ and her original testimonials/certificates etc. However, the OP College refused to return the fee and thus prompted the instant complaint. The complainant has successfully proved her allegations through the submission of her affidavit Ex.C1 and other documents exhibited here as Ex.C2 to Ex.C6.
6. The opposite party college did appear through her learned counsel who filed his Memo of appearance on 01.11.2016 but only to appear again on 16.12.2016 at the stage of arguments and argued that the complainant had left at her own whims causing loss to the college whereas the ‘one-vacated’ B.Ed. Seat remained vacant throughout the session. However, the OP college did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that only ‘one’ seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant causing ‘loss’ to the college and in its absence the assertion amounts nothing more than a ‘bald’ statement and cannot be relied upon. Somehow, we are not convinced with the logic as put forth by the OP College being un-accompanied by any supporting cogent and reliable evidence on the part of the OP College raking them up for an ‘adverse’ statutory award under the applicable statute since the B.Ed. Seat stood vacated on 11.08.2016 much before the close of admissions (lasting up to the end of September) and start of the new session on 16.08.2016.
7. In the light of the all above, we are of this considered view that present complaint can be best disposed of by giving directions to the opposite party and thus ORDER the opposite party College to refund the impugned admission fee by deducting a nominal administration charges of Rs.2,000/- and pay the balance amount of Rs.13,000/- to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the complaint till actual payment. The parties here shall however bear their own costs, here.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
January 18, 2017 Member.
*MK*
