DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Swati Gulati d/o Sh.Pardeep Gulati, r/o 154-A, Parvati Enclave, Baltana, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

Chitkara University (Himachal Pradesh) through its Authorised Signatory, Saraswati Kendra, SCO No.160-161, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Party

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

ARGUED BY : Sh.Somesh Gupta, Counsel for complainant.

                       Sh.Amit Arora, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Dinesh Arora,                Counsel for OP

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Ms.Swati Gulati, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Chitkara University (Himachal Pradesh) - Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP). The allegations of the complainant in brief are as under :-

                   The complainant took admission in 4 years Bachelors of Engineering Program in Electronics & Communication Engineering run by OP on 20.6.2011 as per admission letter – Annexure C-1. In the University Prospectus, there was no mention about the number of seats against which counseling was held. The complainant paid tuition fees (per semester) Rs.55,000/-, institutional development fund Rs.5000/- and caution money (refundable) Rs.10,000/- to OP for first semester as per receipt dated 20.6.2011, copy of which is Annexure C-2. The complainant further paid counseling fee Rs.2500/- and ERP charges Rs.5500/- vide receipt dated 20.6.2011, copy of which is Annexure C-3. The complainant further paid Rs.25,000/- as transportation charges for one year on 19.8.2011 vide receipt, copy of which is Annexure C-4. Before the completion of 1^st semester, OP on 28.11.2011 also took 2^nd semester fees of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant vide receipt, copy of which is Annexure C-5. Just at the beginning of 2^nd semester, father of the complainant informed the OP that the complainant would not continue her studies in their University and sought Bonafide Certificate as well as refund of caution money, fee of 2^nd semester and transportation charges, as per rules but the OP issued the Bonafide Certificate and did not consider the request regarding refund of the money. Even No Dues Certificate was issued on 21.2.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-6. The complainant attended only one or two classes of 2^nd semester in the University of OP on 4^th and probably on 5^th January, 2012 and, thereafter, shifted to Thapar University, Patiala, where she got admission on 7.1.2012. Another letter was written to the OP on 28.6.2012 for refund of caution money, fee of 2^nd semester and transportation charges, copy of which is Annexure C-7. Since OP did nothing regarding the request for the refund of caution money, fee of 2^nd semester and transportation charges, therefore, another registered letter dated 21.8.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-8 was sent. After repeated requests and personal visits to the Administrative Office of the OP at Chandigarh, OP refunded Rs.10,000/- as caution money as per receipt dated 20.6.2011. However, the fee of the second semester and proportionate transportation charges i.e. Rs.12,500/- were not refunded. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OP to refund fee of 2^nd semester of Rs.60,000/- and proportionate transportation charges of Rs.12,500/-, apart from making payment of compensation for deficiency in service and legal expenses.

2.                OP in its written reply has pleaded that the complainant is not entitled to refund of fee as she left the college with her own choice mid-way after the course commenced. The seat so left by the complainant remained vacant and was not filled up and as such caused financial loss to the OP. It has been stated that the complainant attended classes for first semester and on 28.9.2011 she deposited fee for second semester. On 2.2.2012 on her request, No Dues Certificate was issued, wherein reason of leaving the University was shown to be shifting of her family to Gurgaon. For the first time on 28.6.2012 a letter was received from the father of complainant, wherein, it was informed that the complainant had got admission in Thapar University and he was planning to shift to Gurgaon and requested for refund of fee. Out of total fee, Rs.10,000/- as caution money was refundable, which was paid to the complainant vide cheque No.041882 dated 13.9.2012. It has been stated that since the second semester had already commenced and the complainant also attended few classes, hence she was not entitled to any refund of fee or transportation charges, as per rules.

3.                In her rejoinder, the complainant has pleaded that the public notice of UGC – Annexure OP-1 shows that the UGC has rejected the policy of educational institutions of collecting full fees from the admitted students long before the actual starting of academic session. It has been averred that the OP collected the fee of second semester on 28.9.2011, which started in the month of January, 2012. It has further been stated that the OP University had 420 seats available for admission out of which 370 seats were filled up, therefore, when the complainant vacated her seat it did not alter any position for the university. It has been also stated that OP was informed for the first time at the start of January, 2012 itself about the leaving of the institution of OP. On her written request, OP issued Bonafide Certificate on 23.1.2012 – Annexure C-12. 

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6.                It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant took admission in 4 years Bachelors of Engineering Program in Electronics & Communication Engineering with OP in pursuance of letter dated 20.6.2011– Annexure C-1. A fee of Rs.70,000/- was received in cash towards the dues for the first semester of the program. The details of the fee are given in the copy of receipt dated 20.6.2011 – Annexure C-2. Apart from the above said fee, the complainant also paid counselling fees and ERP charges to the tune of Rs.8,000/- vide Annexure C-3. The copy of receipt dated 19.8.2011 Annexure C-4 shows that the complainant also paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards transportation charges. According to the complainant, these transportation charges were for one year and this fact has not been denied by the OP in its written reply. Admittedly, the complainant attended the complete classes for first semester. The dispute between the parties relates to the fee of the second semester amounting to Rs.60,000/- paid on 28.11.2011 vide receipt Annexure C-5 and the refund of the transportation charges for the second semester.

7.                It has been contended on behalf of the complainant that the father of the complainant informed the OP at the beginning of second semester that the complainant will not continue her studies and sought Bonafide Certificate, refund of the caution money, fee of second semester and transportation charges as per rules. No Dues Certificate was issued to the complainant on 21.2.2012 vide Annexure C-6. The complainant attended only one or two classes of second semester probably upto 4^th or 5^th January, 2012 and, thereafter, shifted to Thapar University, Patiala, where she got admission on 7.1.2012. It has been urged on behalf of the complainant that another letter was written to OP on 28.6.2012 for refund of the caution money, fee of second semester and transportation charges, copy of that letter is Annexure C-7. A reminder was also sent on 21.8.2012 vide Annexure C-8. Ultimately the OP refunded only an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards caution money, which was refundable, for which, a cheque dated 13.9.2012  - Annexure C-9 was sent. The learned Counsel for the complainant has relied upon UGC Guidelines – Annexure OP/1 and the cases titled as FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs. Dr.Minathi Rath 2012(3) CLT National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 14, Ganpati College of Engineering for Girls Vs. Vijeta and another 2013(1) CLT National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 137, Abhimanu Visions (E) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms.Vinayshree 2012(1) CPC State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh 543 and has contended that the OP could not retain the whole fees and transportation charges, when the complainant left the institution of the OP on 4^th or 5^th January, 2012. The learned Counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the fees of the second semester amounting to Rs.60,000/- and proportionate transportation charges of Rs.12,500/-, apart from compensation for deficiency in service and litigation expenses.

8.                On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the OP has argued that the seat left by the complainant remained vacant and has not been filled up by any other student causing financial loss to the OP. He has also argued that the complainant attended the classes for complete first semester and she deposited the fee for the second semester on 28.11.2011. On 2.2.2012, on the request of the complainant No Dues Certificate – Annexure C-6 was issued, wherein, reason for leaving the University was shown as shifting of family to Gurgaon. He has argued that out of the total fee an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards caution money, which was refundable, has been paid to the complainant vide cheque dated 13.9.2012. The learned Counsel for the OP has argued that as per AICTE Guidelines – Annexure OP/2, if a request is received from the candidate after the start of the academic session and seat cannot be filled by the institute, no refund except security deposit is payable. The learned Counsel for the OP has also cited Harshdeep Singh Vs. Institute of Engineering and Technology, CWP No.6981 of 2009 (O&M) decided on 4.2.2010 – Annexure OP/4 decided by our own Hon’ble High Court and has argued that since the seat surrendered by the complainant could not be filled up, therefore, in terms of the rules mentioned above, the complainant is not entitled to the refund of the fee. The learned Counsel for the OP has also produced a copy of the notification issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Higher Education dated 14.6.2010, in accordance with which, the ‘fee’ means collection made by or on behalf of private University from the students by whatever it may be called, which is not refundable. The learned Counsel for the OP has strenuously argued that the complainant is not entitled to the refund of any fee.

9.                We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of both the learned Counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the complainant attended the classes for the complete first semester. She deposited the fee of Rs.60,000/- for the second semester on 28.11.2011 – Annexure C-5 (wrongly recorded as 28.9.2011 in the written reply of the OP). The second semester started w.e.f. January, 2012. The copy of attendance record at pages No.8 and 9 of the documents of the OP shows that the name of Ms.Swati Gulati, complainant is recorded at serial No.44 and she attended the classes from 4^th January to 6^th January. According to the complainant, she got admission in Thapar University, Patiala w.e.f. 7.1.2012. Though the complainant has pleaded that her father at the beginning of second semester informed the OP that she would not continue her studies in the University of the OP, yet there is no such document on record, which could show that the complainant or her father informed the OP in the beginning of second semester that the Bonafide Certificate was required for admission in Thapar University and the complainant would not continue with the studies. The copy of the certificate dated 23.1.2012 – Annexure C-12 simply shows that the OP gave a certificate to the complainant of being a bonafide student of Chitkara University and studying in the BE 1^st year (Electronics and Communication Engineering) course. Had the complainant given an intimation of her admission in Thapar University, OP would not have given a certificate on 23.1.2012 that she was currently studying in the first year with it. According to the OP, on the request of the complainant on 2.2.2012 a No Dues Certificate was issued, wherein, reason of leaving the university was shown to be shifting her family to Gurgaon. Therefore, on the basis of No Dues Certificate dated 2.2.2012 it appears that the complainant intimated about her intention to discontinue her studies in the course with OP University in the first week of February, 2012. We are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the fee of second semester of Rs.60,000/- after deducting the fee of January, 2012.

10.              As far as the refund policy of AICTE Guidelines, the copy of judgment dated 4.2.2010 – Annexure OP/4 and the copy of notification dated 14.6.2010 of Government of Punjab, Department of Higher Education relied upon by the complainant are concerned, it is pertinent that our own Hon’ble High Court in Atam Parkash Khatter and another Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and other, Civil Writ Petition No.13308 of 2009, decided on 21.7.2010, has held that an educational institution cannot act like a commercial establishment and there is no justification on the part of the institution in retaining the substantial fee paid by a student, who decides not to pursue his/her studies in the said institution. In the above case, the institution which was left by the student was directed to refund the amount of fee to the petitioner. In Abhimanu Visions (E) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms.Vinayshree 2012(1) CPC State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh 543 (supra), wherein the complainant attended the classes but had to leave the institution for unavoidable circumstances. It was held that it was the duty of the OP to refund the proportionate fee to the complainant immediately she left the course but they did not perform their duty.

11.              As far as the question of the seat left by the complainant remaining vacant is concerned, even as per affidavit of Dr.Varinder Singh Kanwar, Registrar Chitkara University, in all 420 seats were available, out of which, 370 were filled up. Apart from the complainant, few other students also left college and finally 359 students were left with the University. In such a situation, when the OP University was already having vacant seats when the complainant vacated her seat, it did not alter any position for the university and no financial loss was caused to it when it was already suffering financial loss because it could fill up only 370 seats out of 420 available seats. In similar circumstances, in Ganpati College of Engineering for Girls Vs. Vijeta and another (supra), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the concurrent view of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that due to large vacancies the institution had no waiting list of admission seekers, therefore, the question of filling up the vacancy caused by the exit of the individual complainant did not arise. This was the situation, for which the complainant could not be blamed. In the instant case also we feel that the complainant cannot be blamed if her seat remained vacant after she joined Thapar University.

12.              For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the tuition fee of the second semester after deducting the fee of January, 2012 i.e. Rs.60,000/- minus Rs.10,000/- = Rs.50,000/-. Apart from that, since the complainant applied for a Bonafide Certificate in the first week of February, 2012, therefore, after making proportionate deduction upto the month of January, 2012, in the transportation charges of Rs.25,000/-, she is entitled to the refund of remaining amount of Rs.10,420/-. In other words, the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.50,000/- + Rs.10,420/- = Rs.60,420/- towards fees and transportation charges. We find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP in not refunding the above amount to the complainant.

13.              In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed. OP is directed to make refund of an amount of Rs.60,420/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. 1.2.2012 till the date of realization. OP shall also make payment of an amount of Rs.7500/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.

14.              This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP shall be liable to refund the above said awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 1.2.2012 till the date of realization, besides litigation expenses.

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