BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Mukul Sharma son of Pradeep Kumar Sharma resident of H.No.1063/A, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Chairman, Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering and Technology (SVIET), Banur, Rajpura, Punjab.

2.      The Principal, Gurukul Vidhya Peeth, SCO 51-52, 2^nd Floor, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL    MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. PBS Goraya, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Harinder Kumar, Adv. for OP-1

Sh.Sanjeev Katoch, Dealing Asstt./Representative of OP No.2.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant got admission in the 4 year course in mechanical stream of OP-1 Institute through counseling for which he deposited Rs.43,480/- on 25.8.2008 as admission fee.  When he came to know from the old students that the quality of education provided was not satisfactory and also realized that the atmosphere was not good, he decided to surrender his seat and withdraw.  He approached the OP institute on 4.9.2008 and informed them that he wanted to surrender his seat but the staff of the OP forced him to write on the application for surrender that he was not fit for engineering studies.  He bowed to the OPs as he was in need of his certificates. He visited the OP institute number of times and requested for refund of his fees but to no avail. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 admitted the factum of joining of course and deposit of fees by the complainant.  It has been submitted that the complainant left the course midway because of his own. The allegations of the complainant regarding non providing better quality of education have been denied. It has been stated that the answering OP was bound by the instructions issued by the AICTE but as per those instructions the complainant was not entitled to refund because the seat surrendered by him was not filled thereafter.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             On 10.2.2010 when the case was fixed for filing reply and evidence of OP-2, Sh. Surmukh Singh, dealing Assistant/Representative of OP-2 suffered a statement that no reply or evidence is to be filed on their behalf.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for OP No.1 and the representative of OP No.2 and have also perused the record including written arguments.

6.             The complainant is claiming refund of the fee on the basis of public notice Annexure C-4, dated 18^th June, 2009 issued by All India Council for Technical Education.  In view of this notification it is to be proved by the complainant that he withdrew before starting of the course or that the seat vacated by him has been filled up by the OP.  The contention of the complainant is that he deposited a sum of Rs.43,480/- on 25.08.2008 and had approached the OP institute on 4.09.2008 withdrawing from the course. His contention further is that he had surrendered the seat on 4.09.2008 before the second counseling which was scheduled for 5.09.2009. It has however transpired that the complainant has told a lie in this respect.  He has not produced any document to suggest if there was second counseling regarding this admission and if the same was scheduled for 5.09.2009. He himself has produced the letter Annexure C-3 dated 26.06.2008 in which it is specifically mentioned that “there is one counseling only”.  The question of second counseling therefore does not arise. In order to institute the present complaint the complainant has therefore falsely asserted in the concluding line of para number 4 of the complaint that the second counseling was scheduled for 5.09.2009.  Had it been so, the complainant would have produced the proof or the document to that effect.

7.             The contention of the complainant is that the quality of education provided by the OP was not up to the mark and the atmosphere of the College was not good for studies and due to these reasons he surrendered the seat.  It is however found that the complainant in order to get back the fees has coined this excuse falsely.  The earliest application moved by him in this respect is Annexure C-2 in which he specifically admitted having realized that “he was not a fit candidate to pursue engineering study and has decided to discontinue it in consultation with his parents”.  It was no where mentioned by him if the atmosphere of the College was not proper or the standard of education was not good.  The complainant has therefore told a lie in this respect also.

8.             The OP institute is recognized by the authorities concerned and has been permitted to impart education in the field of Engineering and Technology. The complainant who claimed not to be a fit candidate to pursue engineering has however thought of finding faults in the quality of education being imparted in that College.  The allegations leveled by the complainant are vague and indefinite.  It is not mentioned by him as to what quality of education should have been and in what respect was the deficiency therein. He has not specified as to how the atmosphere of the College was not good for study, when thousands of students may be getting education there. It is therefore clear that the complainant has fabricated a false story in para number 4 of his complaint also due to his greed to get back the fees to which he may not otherwise be entitled.

9.             The contention of the OP is that the seat vacated by the complainant has not been filled up.  He has referred to Annexure R-1 which gives the details of the seats in ME as 60 out of 55 seats have been filled up but 5 seats remained vacant.  It is no where alleged by the complainant nor he produced any document to controvert this fact to allege that the seat vacated by him had been filled-up. Due to vacation of the seat by the complainant, the OPs are the worst sufferers because they would not get a student in his place through out the course of 4 years of Mechanical Engineering. The seat would continue to be vacant for 4 years and the OPs would be deprived of the fee which was to be paid by the complainant.

10.           The complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the OPs were ready to impart education to the complainant for which they received the fees but the complainant voluntarily left the same.  In view of the notification Annexure C-4 the complainant is not entitled to refund of the fee deposited by him. In case “Ramdeobaba Engineering College Vs. Sushant Yuvraj RCDE & Anr. III (1994) CPJ 160 (NC)” it was held by the Hon`ble National Commission that “non-refund of admission fee is not a deficiency in service”.

11.           In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint. The same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.