Haryana

StateCommission

A/395/2019

DR. GAURAV AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAV DENTAL COLLEGE AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

JAGJIT SINGH CHATRATH

09 May 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

First Appeal No :         395 of 2019

Date of Institution:        24.04.2019

Date of Decision :        09.05.2019

 

 

 

Dr. Gaurav Aggarwal aged 33 years, son of Sh. Subhash Chand Jindal, Advocate, resident of House No.536, Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      DAV (C) Dental College, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Principal Dr. I.K. Pandit.

 

2.      DAV College Managing Committee, Chitra Gupta Road, New Delhi -110055 through its President Sh. Punam Suri.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member                   

 

 

 

Present:     Shri Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant.

 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Complainant-Dr. Gaurav Aggarwal has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by learned District Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari whereby the complaint filed by him for refunding the amount of Rs.1,31,780/- per year for three years stands dismissed.

2.      According to the complainant, he had passed BDS examination in the year 2008 and in order to take admission in MDS in DAV (C) Dental College, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar purchased prospectus for the year 2011-2012 and deposited Rs.6,50,000/- per year as fee and Rs.1,31,780/- per year towards miscellaneous head, such as caution money, college security, equipment/institutional security, library security, university thesis/dissertation fee, hostel security, medical/dental care, cultural club, lab charges, etc. He passed MDS from the aforementioned college.  According to him, he was entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.1,31,780/- for every year for three years, i.e. Rs.3,95,340/- in all.  He had written a letter to the opposite parties but the amount was not refunded to him.  He also served a legal notice upon the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.3,95,340/- but despite receiving the same, they failed to refund the said amount.  He also claimed that the opposite parties were mischievous and in order to extort money from him, made mis-representation and gave false assurances orally or by way of prospectus, which amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the helpless student/consumer.  The opposite parties published prospectus in the year 2011-12, as per which, the college was to charge various miscellaneous funds and the amount of Rs.1,31,780/- was mentioned against those heads but the opposite parties used to issue receipt for the same against one head i.e. miscellaneous funds without disclosing amounts after bifurcating them under various heads as mentioned in the prospectus.  The caution money was usually charged from the students in the form of security to recover losses due to theft or damage to the property being used by the students including the books issued to the students from the library.  Normally the caution money was to be charged under two different heads i.e. institution/library security from all the students and hostel/mess security from the day boarders only.  Caution money could be charged only once at the time of admission, which is refundable.  In their reply to the legal notice, the opposite parties admitted caution money to be refundable by way of stipend.  Cultural security could be charged once during the course from regular students but it was not mentioned in the reply.  Institutional and Library security were also not mentioned in the reply.  University thesis/dissertation fee is one time deposit as thesis is done only once during the three years course.  Hostel fee and hostel security could be charged only if the student stayed in the hostel.  The complainant did not opt for hostel as he was permanent resident of Jagadhari.  Medical/dental care, cultural club, lab charges were not charged as mentioned in the reply. On the other hand, the opposite parties in their reply mentioned that they charged Rs.81,250/- as development fund, which is not permissible, being prohibited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The prospectus nowhere mentioned that the development funds would be charged from the students but in the reply, the opposite party took the legal stand, which is not tenable.  Research/study done is being done as thesis is to be submitted once in three years and not every year.  The registration and university charges are Rs.6,030/- but it was not mentioned in the prospectus.  Students registered once in the course were charged Rs.5,000/- as miscellaneous funds but the receipt given was for Rs.1,31,780/-.   Thesis evaluation was Rs.4,500/-.  Accordingly, the complainant prayed that the opposite parties should refund Rs.3,95,340/- to him alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization besides a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, Rs.5,00,000/- for unfair trade practice and deception and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties pleaded non maintainability of complaint, lack of jurisdiction with the District Forum, bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties, etc.  It was however admitted that the amount of Rs.1,31,780/- was charged every year for the period of three years apart from per year in the sum of Rs.6,50,000/- per year.  The complainant was required to deposit various funds totaling Rs.1,31,780/-, which was deposited by him and receipt of the same was duly issued to him.  The amount of Rs.1,31,780/- deposited by the complainant per year was not liable to be refunded, which amount was received in each head and after calculation only a sum of Rs.54,000/- was payable to the complainant which had already been refunded to him @ Rs.1,500/- per month over three years during his studies through bank.  In the prospectus for the year 2011-12, it was nowhere mentioned that various funds were refundable. No security amount was charged from the complainant and as such, there was no issue to refund the same.  The college received legal notice from the complainant and it was duly replied.  The complainant had filed false complaint taking advantage of his father, who was a practicing lawyer in District Courts, Jagadhari and by mounting pressure upon the opposite parties and harassing them.  Had the college any intention to charge extra money, then it could have asked the complainant to take hostel compulsory on the pretext of it being a postgraduate course where regular 24 hours stay in the campus was required but it was not done, the complainant being local resident.  The complainant was befitted to this extent also.  Bifurcation of funds were displayed at the time of counseling.  Having been informed about the bifurcation, the complainant himself opted to get stipend on monthly basis, which was paid into his bank account.  It was nowhere mentioned in the prospectus that stipend would be given but even then it was given to him.  For the BDS studies, the Government authorities allowed charging of money. The development fund was not a capitation fee as wrongly mentioned by the complainant.  Development funds to the tune of 12.5% of the tuition fee had already been allowed by the State Fee Committee in BDS also, so, the same percentage is running for MDS and as such, there was no illegality.  The students were not registered only for one year but registered every year.  Though the thesis is submitted once in three years but the work of thesis goes on for three years continuously.   The opposite parties did not commit any deception nor indulged in any unfair trade practice nor there was any deficiency in service.  Accordingly, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4.      In the course of evidence, the complainant relied upon documents Annexures C-1 to C-28 whereby the opposite parties relied upon documents Annexures R-1 to R-48.

5.      As mentioned above, the learned District Forum after going through the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, found that there was not an iota of evidence to come to the conclusion that the opposite parties were indulging in any unfair trade practice and accordingly, dismissed the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

6.      Having heard learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and on going through the impugned order, the Commission finds that the complainant has already completed MDS studies from the college run by the opposite parties, which studies lasted for three years.  Further in the prospectus, which has been brought on record by the complainant as Annexure C-1, it stood clearly mentioned therein that students would be charged various other funds in addition to the fee which fact has also not been disputed by the complainant.  Further from the letter dated 21.04.2011 (Annexure R-3) addressed to the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Health and Medical Education, Chandigarh by the Principal of the college provides charging of Rs.1,31,780/- under different heads.  There is another letter dated 01.05.2012/03.05.2012 (Annexure R-4) from the government seeking information from the college from time to time with regard to the charging of funds apart from fee.   It has also nowhere been mentioned in the prospectus that the various funds to be deposited by the students would be refundable. As such, the complainant cannot now claim that he was entitled for the refund of the various amounts.

7.      It may be worthwhile to mention here that the complainant also filed the criminal complaint against the opposite parties on the same facts which complaint was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide order dated 02.04.2016.  Aggrieved of the said order, the complainant filed the revision, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide order dated 30.09.2016.  It may be that the finding of the criminal court is not binding on the District Forum but fact remains that the conclusions arriving at by the court could be considered for arriving at a just and appropriate decision.

8.      In view of the above, the Commission finds that no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari and resultantly, the appeal being without any merit, is hereby dismissed.

  

 

Announced 09.05.2019

(Manjula) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK