Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/36

Harleen kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dashmesh Institute of Research and Dental Science - Opp.Party(s)

Pirthipal Singh

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :        36

Date of Institution :  4.03.2015

Date of Decision :     06.11.2015

 

Harleen Kaur d/o Prithipal Singh Advocate, r/o B-XX-3407, Premjit Road, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                   

 .....Complainant

Versus

1. Dasmesh Institute of Research & Dental Science, Faridkot, Punjab through Authorized Signatory/ Principal.

2. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab, India through its Authorized Signatory/ V C.

3. Ministry of Medical Education, Government of Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh through Authorised Signatory.

                                                                                          .........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Sh P L Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Prithipal Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

Sh Satinder Pal Singh Sandhu,  Ld Counsel for OP-1,

Sh R P Goyal, Ld Cousnel for OP-2,

OP-3 Exparte.

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs

to refund the amount of Rs 32,000/-with interest and has also prayed to direct Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony besides cost of litigation.

2                                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a student in National Dental College, Dera Bassi, Punjab and took admission in college of OP-1 under OP-2 through first counselling of PGET 2012. As per demand of OP-1,  Complainant deposited Rs 4.5 lacs as Tuition fee and Rs 1 lac as Hostel Fee and in addition also deposited Rs 75,000/-, Rs 33,500/- and Rs 64,500/-with OPs, i.e total of Rs 7,23,000/-. During second counselling, complainant shifted to National Dental College, Dera Bassi, Punjab and as per their demand again deposited Rs 4.5 lacs as tuition fee alongwith other charges to the college. It is contended that seat vacated by complainant with OP-1 was filled by OP-1 by another candidate. Complainant submitted an application before Op-1 for refund of fee and other charges. It is contended that out of Rs 7,23,000/-, OP-1 refunded the amount of Rs 5.09 lac only and refused to refund the entire amount. On complaint of complainant before Op-2, Op-1 refunded the amount of Rs 1,82,000/- vide cheque after deducting amount of Rs 32,000/-illegally against the rules and directions issued by OP-2 and OP-3.  The act of deducting amount of Rs 32,000/-by OP-1 quite illegal, arbitrary and is against the rules and regulations issued by OP-2 and 3. Complainant and her father made many requests before OPs for refund of remaining amount and also complained against OP-1 to Op-2 and 3 but all in vain. As per rules, OP-1 has no right to deduct an amount of Rs 32,000/-from complainant, who has shifted from college of OP-1 to another college on account of second counselling conducted by Op-2. In January, 2015, OP-1 flatly refused to refund the amount of Rs 32,000/- which they illegally deducted and this act of OP amounts to misconduct and malpractice. Act of OP-2 in not taking action against OP-1 is also illegal. All this act of OPs has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint and for seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs 32,000/-with interest and has also prayed to direct Ops to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony besides cost of litigation. Hence, the complaint.

3                                              The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.03.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                         On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable in this Forum as complainant is not the consumer of OP-1 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP, but admitted that seat vacated by complainant is filled by another candidate. It is asserted that present complaint is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed on this score. However, on merits, OP-1 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1. It is asserted that answering OP refunded Rs 5,09,000/-out of Rs 7,23,000/- and retained the amount of Rs 1,70,000/-as tuition fee and Rs 42,000/-as hostel fee and catering charges at the time of shifting of complainant from their college. Complainant studied in the college of OP-1 from 1.05.2012 to 18.09.2012 for about 5 months. It is asserted that candidate given admission in her place would study in their college for three years from October 2012 to September 2015 and will pay tuition fee and other charges for three years only and thus, the expenses of college on study of complainant, hostel, catering expenses from 1.05.2012 to 18.09.2012 cannot be recouped from the fee of candidate, who had taken her place. As per note 3 under para 26 (b) of Punjab Government Notification dt 10.01.2011 duly mentioned in the prospect of 2012 by Baba Faridkot University, the full fee was refundable only if process of shifting before 30.05.2012 stipulated in para no. 23 of above notification. Delay in completion of the admission process is beyond the control of institution and there is no lapse on the part of institution of OP-1. Moreover, complainant is shifted at her own request and not in the interest of any institution and she has also changed the subject in MDS course at her own will and thus, deductions made by OP-1 are reasonable and justified, but on advice of OP-2, OP-1 refunded the amount of Rs 1,82,000/-more after deducting Rs 32,000/- i.e Rs 30,000/-as per directions of OP-2 and Rs 2000/-for prospectus. It is further averred that complainant remained in institution from 1.05.2012 to 18.09.2012 and stayed in hostel and thus, OP-1 deducted charges on account of Hostel and Mess charges etc, which is not illegal and is deducted as per rules and direction of OP-2. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and all the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite parties.

5                                                              OP-2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arises against answering OP and it has been unnecessarily dragged in litigation and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering University. It is also asserted that complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. However, on merits, OP-2 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant and asserted that during second counselling, complainant was shifted to another college and upon complaint by complainant, OP-1 was called in the University/OP-2 and as per agreement arrived at, OP-1 was to deduct Rs 30,000/- out of total charged received from complainant and due to that agreement and orders of OP-2, OP-1 refunded the amount of Rs 1,82,000/- and deducted Rs 30,000/-.  The reason for amount of Rs 2000/-deducted by OP-1, is to be replied by OP-1 as it relate to OP-1. It is further asserted that complaint is against OP-1 and is not against OP-2 and Op-3. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering OP. All other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering OP.

6                                                             Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1/A, affidavit of Pirthi Pal Singh as Ex C-35 and documents Ex C-1 to C-34 and Ex C-36 to C-51 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr S P S Sodhi as Ex. OP-1/1 and document Ex OP-1/2 and then, closed the evidence. Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Darshan Singh Sidhu as Ex OP-2/1 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2.

8                                                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is a student of MDS. In the first counselling of PGET 2012 conducted by OP-2, she had taken admission in the college of OP-1 in the department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology. She deposited amount of Rs 4.5 lac as tuition fee and one lac as Hostel fee and in addition other charges and in total she deposited Rs 7.23 lacs to OPs as per their demand. Copies of the receipts are Ex C-2 to 6. At the time of second counselling conducted by OP-2, she had shifted to another college National Dental College, Dera Bassi and as per demand of new college, she had deposited total fee and other charges to them. Copies of the receipts of fee are Ex C-29 to 34. The seat vacated by her in the college of OP-1 was filled by another candidate. The complainant alongwith other students, who were shifted from college of OP-1 to another college, submitted an application for refund of their fees and other charges paid by them to OP-1. The copy of the application is Ex C-43. On their demand, OP-1 refunded only the amount of Rs 5.9 lacs out of total Rs 7.23 lacs and illegally deducted the remaining amount out of fee paid by them. Op-1 refused to refund the entire amount deposited by the students. The complainant and other students submitted many complaints against OP-1 to OP-2 and 3. Copies of the application for refund of fee are Ex C-1, Ex C-14 and Ex C-40. Complainant also issued notice to OP-1 and 2, copies of notice is Ex C-8. OP-1 duly gave reply to the notice and copy of reply is Ex C-10. OP-2 also gave reply to the notice and called complainant and other students and OP-1 to decide this matter in their office on 21.03.2013. Copy of the letter is Ex C-11. OP-2 conducted a meeting of students and OP-1 in their office on 21.03.2013, copy of the proceedings of the meeting is Ex C-28 and after the meeting, OP-2 advised OP-1 to refund the remaining amount after deducting Rs 30,000/- as Hostel and catering charges vide their letter dt 26.03.2013 Ex C-45. On the advice of OP-2, OP-1 refunded the amount of Rs 1,82,000/- to complainant vide their letter dt 3.04.2013 Ex C-7. The OP-1 illegally and wrongly deducted Rs 32,000/- out of fee paid by the complainant against the rules and directions issued by OP-2 and OP-3. As per guidelines and rules of OP-2 and 3, OP-1 cannot deduct any amount from the fee paid by the complainant in the case of shifting to another college. This deduction made by OP-1 is illegal and arbitrary and is against the rules and regulations of OP-2 and 3. Complainant has requested OP-1 and 2 many times to refund the amount of Rs 32,000/- illegally deducted by OP-1 from the fee. Father of complainant also visited many times to OP-1 and OP-2 to get refund of amount illegally deducted by OP-1. The complainant paid full tuition fee and other charges to second college after shifting from OP-1 to another college and OP-1 also charged full charges from student who took admission in their college on seat, which was vacated by the complainant. Therefore, OP-1 has no right to deduct Rs 32,000/- from the fee paid by the complainant.  The grounds taken by OPs for deducting the amount out of tuition fee paid by the complainant are false and frivolous and are not satisfactory. The complainant has lodged various complaints against OP-1 to OP-2 to take legal action against OP-1, but OP-2 has failed to take any action against OPs. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and mal trade practice. By these illegal acts of OPs, complainant has suffered mental torture and agony and therefore, complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs 32,000/- with interest and compensation and prayed for accepting the present complaint.

9                                             To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that complainant is not the consumer of OP-1 and she does not fall under the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1, so, the present complaint is not maintainable. Present complaint is hopelessly time barred.  However, it is admitted that complainant took admission in their college and paid fees against duly issued receipts and she had shifted to another college during second counselling but they denied that complainant paid full tuition fee and other charges to the second college. They admitted that the seat vacated by complainant in their college was filled by another student but they denied that other student will pay full tuition fee and other charges to their institution as other students will study in their college only for three years i.e October 2012 to September 2015 and will pay the tuition fee and other charges to them for that period only. Complainant stayed and studied in the college of OP-1 from 1.05.2012 to 18.09.2012 i.e from the time of taking admission to her shifting to another college. OP-1 refunded Rs 5.9 lacs to complainant out of Rs 7.23 lacs paid by her to them as tuition and hostel charges and other charges and retained the amount of Rs 2,12,000/- i.e Rs 1,70,000/- as tuition fee and Rs 42,000/- as Hostel and catering charges, which are deducted proportionately for the period she stayed and studied in the institution of OP-1. The complainant stayed and studied in the college of OP-1 from 1.05.2012 to 18.09.2012 so, the amount deducted by OP-1 cannot be recouped from the fees of candidate who has taken her place. As per notification of Punjab Government dt 10.11.2011, the students who shifted from one college to another before 31.05.2012 are entitled for refund of full fee as per para 23 of notification which is produced by the complainant herself as Ex C-36. The delay in completion of admission process is beyond the control of OP-1 and there is no fault on the part of OP-1, if it takes long period. The complainant has been shifted to another college on her own request and not in the interest of OP-1. She also changed subjects in MDS course in the second counselling at her own will. The complainant stayed and studied in the institution of OP-1 for about 5 months. So, deductions made by them are legal and justified. However, on the advice of OP-2, OP-1 refunded more amount of Rs 1,82,000/- to complainant which is admitted by her and deducted only Rs 32,000/- i.e Rs 30,000/- as per direction of OP-2 for hostel and mess charges and Rs 2,000/- as cost of prospectus. The letter of OP-2 regarding refund of amount after deduction of Rs 30,000/- is produced by the complainant herself. The amount of only  Rs 32,000/- is retained by OP-1 as hostel and mess charges and cost of prospectus while remaining entire amount has been refunded to the complainant, as per advice of OP-2. So, question of taking action by OP-2 does not arise at all. The complainant herself admitted that she stayed and studied and took meals in the institution of OP-1 from 1.05.2012 to 18.09.2012 i.e for about 5 months. Therefore, in these circumstances, the answering OP has rightly retained Rs 32,000/- towards hostel and mess charges and there is no irregularity in their act. The complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous against OPs and is filed to harass them and to get illegal monetary benefits. The complainant has not suffered any mental torture and agony and there is no deficiency in service or mal trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                                      Ld Counsel for OP-2 argued that there is no cause of action to file the present complaint against OP-2 and they are unnecessarily dragged into this litigation. There is no deficiency in service on their part. It is admitted that in the first counselling conducted by them, complainant took admission in OP-1 and paid fees to them and in the second counselling, she shifted to another college. They admitted that they received application from complainant and other students against OP-1 for refund of tuition fee paid by them to OP-1 which was deducted by OP-1 from the fees. On their application, OP-2 called a meeting of students and OP-1 in their office to resolve the matter on 21.03.2013. The copy of proceedings of the meeting is Ex C-28 filed by the complainant. in the  meeting, students came to compromise and agreed for deduction of Rs 30,000/- as hostel and mess charges for the period, they stayed in the institution of OP-1 and agreed for refund of remaining amount after deduction of Rs 30,000/-. So, on this, OP-2 directed OP-1 to refund the remaining amount after deduction of Rs 30,000/- to the students. Copy of the letter Ex C-45 is already produced on file by the complainant. As OP-2 resolved the issue of refund of fees with the consent of complainant and other students and as per rules and regulations, OP-1 refunded the amount as per directions of OP-2 and thus, no cause of action remains with complainant to file the present complaint. OP-1 refunded amount of Rs 1,82,000/- after deduction of Rs 30,000/- as per decision of OP-2, copy of the letter is Ex C-7. It is admitted case of the complainant that on the direction of OP-2, OP-1 has already refunded Rs 1,82,000/- to her. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and the present complaint may be dismissed.

11                                                         We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

12                                                        The case of the complainant is that she had taken admission in MDS course in the institution of OP-1 in the counselling conducted by OP-2 and paid Rs.7,23,000/- as tuition fee, hostel fee and other charges and at the time of second counselling, she was shifted to another college and again paid tuition fee, hostel charges and other charges to that college also.  Out of total amount of Rs 7,23,000/-, received by OP-1 as fees and other charges from complainant earlier, they had refunded only Rs 5,09,000/- and illegally deducted the remaining amount and on their complaint to OP-2, they refunded Rs 1,82,000/-and deducted Rs 32,000/- from the amount paid by her which is illegal and is not justified.

 13                                                  In reply to it, LD counsel for OP-1 argued that complainant took admission in their college and stayed and studied there from 1.05.2012 to 18.09.2012 i.e for about 5 months and shifted to another college in 2^nd counselling. Firstly, they refunded Rs 5,09,000/-to her after deducting Rs 2,12,000/-i.e Rs 1,70,000/-as tuition fee and Rs 42,000/-towards hostel and mess charges for the period she studied in their college and stayed there. However, on the advice of OP-2 and as per compromise with students, they returned Rs 1,82,000/-more to them after deducting Rs 30,000/-as hostel and mess charges and Rs 2,000/-as cost of prospectus. They are entitled for the deduction of this amount as complainant stayed for about 5 months in their hostel and took meals there and used other facilities. So, charges for meals and facilities of hostel are deducted from the fees paid by the complainant and it is reasonable and justified.

14                                                            The complainant filed this complaint for refund of Rs 32,000/-, which was deducted by OP-1 from the fees and other charges paid by her to them. Plea taken by OP-1 is that they deducted this amount only on account of hostel and mess charges for the period of about 5 months for which she stayed in their hostel and took meals and used other facilities and remaining entire amount has already been refunded to her by them. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant studied and stayed in the institution of OP-1 for the period from 1.05.2012 to 18.09.2012 i.e for about 4 and ½ month and resided in the hostel of OP-1 and also took meals and used other facilities in the hostel. With the intervention of OP-2, OP-1 and students reached compromise that OP-1 can deduct Rs 30,000/-out of fees paid by complainant and other students as hostel and mess charges. So, we find that OP-1 is justified to deduct this amount out of fees paid by complainant and other students as hostel and mess charges for the period she stayed in the institution of OP-1. It is observed that there is no trade mal practice or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

15                              In view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed being without merits. However, due to peculiar set of circumstances no order as to costs. Arguments in present case were heard on 5.11.2015 and order was kept reserved for pronouncement for today. Accordingly, order in present case is hereby pronounced. Copy of the order be issued to parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 06.11.2015

 

Member                Member                   President

(Parampal Kaur) (P  Singla)              (Ajit Aggarwal)