Date of Filing:28-11-2014
Date of Order:22-01-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Tuesday, the 22nd day of January, 2019
C.C.No.3 /2015
Between
Mr.Shaik Abdul Khader Jeelani
S/o.Shaik Ahmed Vali,
R/o.H.No.19-01-1062/8/B,
Bandalguda, Bahadurpura,
Hyderabad – 500 064 ……Complainant
And
- Joint Secretary and Director (Public Grievance)
Department of Higher Education,
Room No.107-D-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi, Pin No – 110002
- University Grant Commission (UGC)
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110002
Rep.by its Chairman, Pin No – 110002
- The Central Seat Allocation Board
(JEE Main – 2014)
Malaviya National Institute Technology
Jaipur, Rajasthan State,
Rep. by its Chairman, Pin No – 302017
- The Director,
Lovely Professional University
Phagwara, Punjab State, Pin No-144401 ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Mr. M.Kiran kumar
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. R.S.Rastogi
Opposite party No.2 : Absent
Opposite party No.3 : Mr. GudaVenkateswar Rao
Opposite party No.4 : Mr. Chundi Sai Kumar
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund the fee amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest there on and to award Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony caused to the complainant by the opposite parties by their deficiency of service and costs of complaint is Rs.10,000/-.
- The complainant’s case in brief is that the opposite party No.2 every year conducts JEE main selection to the primary institutions in the Country. In the year 2014 the opposite party No.2 was selected to conduct JEE main 2014 examination. The complainant applied for admission into Computer Science and Engineering in opposite party No.4 University through Central Seat allocation board. The opposite party No.3 has selected for admission of complainant as he acquired more than 95% of marks in the Intermediate course. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- by online towards spot round seat allotment on 5-08-2014 as admission fee. The opposite party No.3 having received the said amount and sent an email to the complainant and locked his admission in the opposite party No.4 University on 5-08-2014. The opposite party No.3 sent a message to the complainant on 9-08-2014 asking him to report during the period from 10-08-2014 to 13-08-2014. Since the complainant resides at Hyderabad could not attend the certificate verification as he was suffering with fever. Accordingly the complainant reported to opposite party No.4 by telephone and sent an email also. But he did not receive any response from opposite party No.4. When he approached opposite party No.4 with relevant documents and medical certificate on 19-08-2014, he was informed that his admission was cancelled as he did not report as directed during the period from 10-8-2014 to 13-08-2014. Due to the cancellation of admission by opposite party No.4 the complainant lost one academic year. In order to cancel his admission the opposite party No.3 and 4 deliberately sent date of intimation to the complainant just one day before the schedule fixed for his appearance at opposite party No.4 University. The distance between the Hyderabad and the place where the University of opposite party is situate is more than 2000Kms and one cannot reach the opposite party university by travelling the said distance in a day or two days. The opposite party No.4 without considering this aspect simply refused to give admission. There was no willful intention on the part of the complainant in not attending before opposite party No.4 as scheduled in the intimation sent to him. The opposite party No.4 did not inform anything about the refund of the admission fee paid by the complainant.
The complainant has sent a representation to opposite party No.2 & 3 on 22-08-2014 to refund the admission fee amount paid by him. The complainant hails from poor family and he arranged the admission fee by borrowing from 3rd parties and pledging gold ornaments of the family members. TThe complainant the opposite party No.2 sent an information to opposite party No.4 to refund the admission fee as per the instructions issued by Ministry of HRD/UGC. The opposite party No.1 has control over the opposite party No.2 to 4 and they have followed the instructions and guidelines issued by it. As there was no response from opposite party No.2 to 4 the complainant got issued a legal notice to them on 24-09-2014 for refund of the admission fee paid by him. The opposite party No.3 having receiving received on said notice neither gave reply nor complied his request and it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint for the reliefs stated supra.
- Opposite party No.3&4 filed written version and same is adopted by opposite party No.1. Though separate written versions are filed the defense set out is on identical lines. The opposite party No.3&4 while denying the allegations of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part contended that the complaint in the present Forum is not maintainable and complaint is devoid of merits.
The substance of defense set out in the written version is that opposite party No.1 is a policy making body to streamline the higher education system. The opposite party No.3 is controlled by the opposite party No.1 and which is constituted only for running the process of seat allocation for JEE (Mains) examination and it becomes defunct once with admission process is over. The opposite party No.1 has no role to play in seat allocation procedure of CSAB 2014. The opposite party No.4 is a Self financed Technical Institute and is autonomous body and is working as a part of CASB 2014 seat allocation process only in Spot round which is the last round of seat allocation process.
The complainant applied for admission into Computer science and Engineering course in the opposite party No.4 institution. The opposite party No.3 provides seats to the candidates in Government Funded and Self Financed Institutes by preparing a merit list given by JEE2014 CSAB and weightage marks secured in Intermediate. The allocation of seat in Government funded Technical Institute is made in all rounds which include 4 rounds and spot round whereas self Financed Technical Institute participated only in spot round. The opposite party No.4 is a Self Financed Technical Institute and it participated only in spot round. The complainant in order to take admission in opposite party No.4 institute deposited of Rs.40,000/- as fee for spot round. The depositing of admission fee is a pre-condition for the candidates who seeks to admission in Self Financed Technical Institutes.
In the brochure of CSAB2014 a scheduled for seat allocation and counseling was provided and subsequently a revised schedule with minor changes was also provided online . The complainant had the knowledge of schedule right from the beginning of the procedure and when he was selected through any of the first four rounds he had an advance knowledge that he will have to apply in spot round if he desires an admission. Thus the complainant by selecting the opposite party institute had knowledge of the fact that he will have to be present at the institute on the specified dates and it was his responsibility to have made arrangements. In the brochure itself it was specified for spot round candidates and are advised to carefully choose their institutes and branches, as there was no provision of fee refund if one chooses not to join the allotted institute. The complainant made a choice and has participated in the process without any protest and was fully aware about the refund rules at the time of application. The seat selection schedules of CSAB2014 from 8th July and ended by August 12th .
As per the admission procedure and Information Brochure the complainant was required to pay fee of Rs.40,000/- in advance to participate in the spot round which takes place after the first four rounds and internal sliding within institute are over. The primary difference between first four rounds and spot round is that in the spot round a candidate pays the fees in advance and thereby agrees to accept the seat if allocated to him. It is specifically provided in the Information Brochure that there was no provision of fees refund paid for spot round , if the candidate chooses not to accept the seat. The complainant was instructed to report with opposite party No.4 between 9-08-2014 to 13-08-2014 but he failed to report during the said period. Thus as per the rules laid down in the brochure the complainant is not entitled for refund of fee paid. He objected to deposit of initial fee only when he was failed to report to the institute allotted to him during the given period. Hence at this stage he cannot raise any grievance for not refunding the fee once he participated in the admission process without protest. This view is supported by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions. To the legal notice got issued by the complainant a suitable reply was given in detailed.
The complainant claim that he came to know only on 9th August 2014 about reporting at the opposite party No.4 institute in between 10th August to 13th August 2014 is incorrect. The admission schedule had been notified by CSAB in the Information Brochure 2014 which was also available on the its website and accessible to every candidate applying for admission as well as general public. So it was well within the knowledge of the complainant at the time of filling of his choice for institution, that he had to take admission at the allotted institution between 8th August, 2014 to 12th August, 2014. The complainant had sent an email on the last day of reporting and that too at 4.00PM citing the so-called reason for his not-reporting as he was suffering from viral fever and his inability to travel for which no supporting documentary evidence was placed and it shows his negligent behavior.
Since admissions had been closed on 12th August, 2014 by the CSAB the seat allotted to the complainant could not be filled and that it remained vacant. In case the SFTI offers admission to another candidate against that seat the SFTI will refund the fee paid by the first candidate against that seat after deducting a processing fee of Rs.1,000/- . As the complainant neither took admission nor got his seat cancelled by the last date of admission notified by CSAB -2014 the initial fee deposited by him was forfeited and no refund is payable as per CSAB rules the Board constituted by the Government of India.
Opposite party No.4 being a University is not a service provider and the complainant is not a consumer under the C.P.Act 1986. This Forum also has no Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as opposite party No.4 is situate in the state of Punjab and it has no branch within the jurisdiction of this Forum. For these grounds the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
In the enquiry stage the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the substance of the allegations made in the complaint and he also got exhibited 11 documents. Similarly for Opposite Party No.4 evidence affidavit of Dr.Monica Gulati stated to be its Registrar is filed and it’s substance is also in tune with the defense set out in the written version. The opposite parties also have got exhibited 8 documents. Both sides have filed written arguments and supplemented the same with the oral submissions.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the complainant is entitled to seek refund of the admission fee paid with interest there on?
- Whether the complainant can maintain the present complaint before the Consumer Forum?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation as prayed?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: it is not in dispute that the complainant applied for admission into Computer Science and Engineering course in opposite party No.4 University after the first four rounds of admission conducted by opposite party No.3. As could be seen from the extract of information in the brochure the candidate who seeks admission on spot round for required to pay fee of Rs.40,000/- in advance. It appears the complainant could not secure admission in first 4 rounds hence he opted for the spot round. As per the brochure itself the seat allocation scheduled fixed by CSAD 2014 commenced from 8th July 2014 and to be closured by 12th August 2014. Spot round online registration was commenced on 2nd August, 2014. It is evident that the complainant has paid the fee on 5th August 2014. The allocation of seat in the spot round was on 8th August 2014. It is further specified in the brochure and schedule of seat allocation reporting at the allotted institution against the spot round was from 8th August 2014 to 12th August 2014. So even before opting for the spot round of admission process the complainant was very much aware that in the event of allotting him a seat in the institute of opposite party No.4 he was required to report there during the period from August 9th to August 12th 2014 as such there is no substance in the allegation of the complainant that only on 8th August 2014 he was informed about the allotting of a seat to him in opposite party No.4 University. As rightly pointed out by the opposite party No in the written version in the brochure in Ex.B6 itself there is a clear mention that under spot round refund rules that in case of Self Financed Technical Institute the admission fee must be paid initially and in the event of a candidate not taking admission or cancellation of seat at the time of reporting to the allotted SFTI due to not fulfilling the eligibility conditions of allotted branch/institute initial fee of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the candidate will be forfeited. But if the institute offer’s admission to another candidate the said seat will refund the fee paid to the fist candidate after deducting Rs.1,000/- towards processing fee. It is not the case of complainant that after cancelling the seat allotting to him for his failure to report at opposite party No.4 institute during the period from 8th August 2014 to 12th August 2014 same was allotted to another candidate as such he is entitled for the refund of the amount. As rightly urged by the opposite parties the complainant was well aware of scheduled fixed in the brochure with regard to admission process and preparedness to report the institute as per the schedule, hence his plea that since he was at Hyderabad at a distance of 2000Kms from opposite party No.4 institute it was not possible for him to report in the given time. Refusal to refund the fee paid by the complainant is in accordance with the rules set out in the brochure issued for the relevant process in 2014. Acting in accordance with the rules set out in the brochure does not amounts to deficiency in service by the opposite parties hence the point is answered against the complainant
Point No.2: Main defense taken by the opposite parties education is not a commodity and Education institutes are not providing any kind of service. Therefore in the matter of admission, fees and regulations of education there cannot be a question of deficiency of service and in support of this legal plea the opposite parties have referred the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Hon’ble National Commission as well as State Commissions which are as under.
In the case of Bihar School Examination Board Vs.Suresh Prasad Sinha reported in IV (2009) C.P.J.34 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the education boards and Universities are not service provider’s and the complaints against them are not maintainable.
The Board is a statutory authority and it functions are to conduct school examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates while discharging the statutory functions and will not offer services to the candidates. In the case of Maharshi Dayanand University Vs.Surjeet Kaur 2010 CTJ 985 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the District Forum or National Commission could not have issued a direction which violates the statutory provision. Since Board is not a service provider and one who takes examinations is not a consumer and consequently the complaint under the C.P.Act is not maintainable against the board.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company while upholding the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that Consumer Disputes Redressaal Forum have no authority to entertain and an adjudicate the complaint.
In the light of this legal position in the above said decisions and other case in listed up by the opposite party in the written version it is clear that complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and an Education institute is not a service provider so as to not maintain the complaint. Accordingly the point is answered against the complainant.
Point No.3. As there was no deficiency of service by the opposite parties and since the complainant is not a consumer and cannot maintain the consumer complaint before the Forum he is not entitled for any relief.
Point No.4 : In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced by us on this the 22nd day of January , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
PW1 DW1
Mr.Shaik Abdul Khader Jeelani Shri Sanjay Rajpal(OP3)
Dr.Monica Gulati (OP4)
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 is pre acknowledgment payment (PAP) payment made through bank]
Ex.A2 is email for provisional seat allotment result-spot round
Ex.A3 is email dated 9-08-2014
Ex.A4 is medical certificate dated 11-08-2014
Ex.A5 is train tickets dated 17-8-2014
Ex.A6 is representation letter dated 27-08-2014
Ex.A7 is acknowledgment card dated 26-09-2014
Ex.A8 is legal notice along with receipt dated 24-09-2014
Ex.A9 is letter from UGC dated 14-10-2014
Ex.A10 is legal notice along with receipt dated 22-10-2014
Ex.A11 is memorandum marks of Intermediate
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties
Ex.B1 is office memorandum dated 12th March, 2014
Ex.B2 is Information Brochure
Ex.B3 is copy of letter issued by Malaviya National Institute of Technology Central Seat Allocation Board, Joint entrance Examination (Main -2014) dt. 30-10-2014 with regard to transfer of student’s fee to the participating Institutes of CSAB-2014
Ex.B4 is office memorandum
Ex.B5 is office copy of reply legal notice issued by opposite party No.3 dated 13-11-2014
Ex.B6 is Information brochure with revised schedule
Ex.B7 is Tabble-2 seat allocation schedule by CSAB -2014
Ex.B8 is copy of letter dated 5th November, 2014 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party
MEMBER PRESIDENT
