Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/381/2020

Sahaj Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director General Medical Education and Training(DGMET) - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

25 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/381/2020
Date of Institution	:	21/09/2020
Date of Decision	:	25/11/2022

 

Sahaj Garg daughter of Sh. Anuj Garg, aged 19 years, House No.240, Ground Floor, Sector 51A, UT Chandigarh 160047.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Director General Medical Education and Training (DGMET), 6^th Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Pin 226001.
2. Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Room No.307, Vikas Bhawan Sachivalya, Janpath, Hazrat Ganj, Lucknow 226001.

… Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

3. Rajshree Medical Research Institute (RMRI), 21 KM, Near Toll Plaza, Rampur Road, Bareilly (UP).

Proforma party No.3

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ishan Malhotra, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Ms. Sahaj Garg, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that OPs 1 & 2 had conducted counselling for NEET UG (UP)-2019 for admission to various state owned and private medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh for which few directions were also issued vide document dated 21.6.2019 (Annexure 1).  The complainant with NEET Roll No.160105223 and all India NEET rank 354253 applied for counselling after making online payment of ₹2,000/- (Annexure 2) as registration fee. Thereafter the complainant deposited demand draft of ₹2.00 lacs on 29.6.2019 as security money at the Nodal Centre i.e. Government Medical College, Saharanpur.  As per directions dated 29.6.2019, it was directed if a candidate does not take admission to the allotted option, then the security money shall be forfeited whereas as per brochure it was also prescribed that in case the applicant has taken admission to his allotted state/private medical colleges/ dental colleges, security money shall be refunded. Later on, complainant was allotted seat in MBBS 2019 in OP-3 institute in first counselling which was having total 150 allowable seats.  The said list is Annexure 5 in which the name of the complainant reflected at Sr.No.90. The complainant had received a letter which advised her to report at Sarojini Naidu Medical College, Agra between 8.7.2019 to 12.7.2019 with required documents and fee advised by the State Govt. or fixed by the College (whichever is less).  The fee structure of private medical colleges is given in Annexure 7 with tuition fee of ₹11,30,000/-, Hostel fee of ₹1,50,000/- and security fee of ₹3,00,000/-. As advised, vide allotment letter (Annexure 6), the complainant attended at the aforesaid College in Agra on 10.7.2019 and submitted demand draft of ₹11,30,000/- representing tuition fee of OP-3.  As per the brochure, the candidates were not allowed to vacate their seats after the pre-decided date and in case a candidate vacates the seat after the pre-decided date, then the entire tuition fee and security money will be forfeited.  However, the complainant did not apply for change in the allotted institute and subsequent to second counselling her name reflected at Sr. No.97 in the list (Annexure 10) of 150 candidates.  On being called by OP-3, complainant took admission there after having deposited the following amounts through NEFT:

₹1,50,000/- dated 8.8.2019 as hostel fee;

₹3,00,000/- dated 8.8.2019 as security fee;

₹50,000/- dated 8.8.2019 for medical kit;

₹1,00,000/- dated 8.8.2019 for student welfare & mess co-operative charges;

₹25,000/- dated 8.8.2019 for student welfare activities;

₹15,000/- dated 8.8.2019 for registration & ERP charges.

The complainant attended session in the institute which includes hospital visit and tending to the patients for a week and thereafter she fell sick. As such, a request was made by the complainant through email dated 31.8.2019 (Annexure 13) for cancellation of admission and treating the seat against her name as vacant.  The surrender of seat by the complainant was within time owing to the fact that mop up round was not complete and there was no loss to the institute since the list (Annexure 14) of finally admitted candidates in OP-3 issued by OPs 1 & 2 on their website shows complete list of 150 candidates without the name of complainant with three new candidates at Sr.No.148 to 150, having been allotted seats on 31.8.2019.  As the surrender of seat was made by the complainant within the prescribed period, OP-3 had handed over all documents in their possession and had also refunded the entire amount of ₹6,65,000/- charged by them as per para 7 of the consumer complaint.  Since the surrender of seat has not caused loss to anybody and the complainant has not left UP medical seat for any other medical seat and she is pursuing Bachelor of Arts from a College in Chandigarh, she is entitled for the refund of the amount lying with OPs 1 & 2. Even as per notification issued by the University Grants Commission dated 2.11.2018, it has been provided that if a student has withdrawn 15 days or more before the formally notified last date of admission, then 100% refund of fee is required to be made within 15 days from the date of receiving the written application from the applicant. Complainant requested OPs 1 & 2 through letters and reminders to refund the aforesaid amount, but, with no result which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, the present consumer complaint. 

2. Written reply on behalf of OP-1 was received by post through which it resisted the consumer complaint on the ground that the complainant had deposited an amount of ₹11,30,000/- as admission fee at the Nodal Centre, Medical College, Agra Saharanpur after the completion of second counselling and as she had surrendered the allotted seat on 31.8.2019, the aforesaid fee and security amount deposited by the complainant was forfeited in view of decision given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dar-us-slam Educational Trust & Ors. Vs. Medical Council of India & Ors., Writ petition (Civil) No.267/2017 decided on 9.5.2017 where it was held that after the second counselling, in case any candidate/student vacates the allotted seat or himself surrenders the same, then the entire admission fee and security amount shall be forfeited.  Prayer has been made that the consumer complaint of the complainant be dismissed in pursuance to the decision in the aforesaid case. 

        However, subsequently neither OP-1 filed its evidence nor anybody appeared on its behalf, therefore, vide order dated 18.6.2021, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

3. OPs 2 & 3 were properly served, but, they did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service. Therefore, vide order dated 28.12.2020, they were proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted her claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove her case, complainant has tendered/proved her evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
4. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that she had been allotted seat in the OP-3 institute after having counselling for UP NEET UG Counselling – 2019 conducted by OPs 1 & 2 and she had deposited an amount of ₹13,30,000/- i.e. ₹2,00,000/- as security money and ₹11,30,000/- as tuition fee, which is still lying with OPs 1 & 2, and further when the complainant had requested OPs 1 & 2 for the cancellation of the allotted seat due to her illness and OPs, after cancelling the allotted seat of complainant, re-allotted the same to another candidate, it is to be determined if the complainant is entitled for the refund of the aforesaid amount of ₹13,30,000/- alongwith compensation as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if the OPs 1 & 2 had rightly forfeited the aforesaid amount in pursuance to the judgment in Dar-us-slam Educational Trust & Ors. Vs. Medical Council of India & Ors.(supra), as is the defence of the OPs.
5. In order to determine the real controversy between the parties, the circulars issued by the UGC, having been relied upon by the complainant and the directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dar-us-slam Educational Trust & Ors. Vs. Medical Council of India & Ors. (supra), coupled with the findings given by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Arun Kumar, 2019 (1) CLT 436 (NC) are required to be scrutinized carefully. 
6. Perusal of the judgment in the case of Dar-us-slam Educational Trust & Ors. Vs. Medical Council of India & Ors. (supra) shows that the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 4 had observed as under :-

“4. After the second round of counselling for All India Quota seats, the students who take admission in All India Quota seats should not be allowed/permitted to vacate the seats. This would ensure that very few seats are reverted to the State Quota and also All India Quota seats are filed by students from the all India merit list only. The students who take admission and secure admission in Deemed Universities pursuant to the second round of counselling conducted by the DGHS shall not be eligible to participate in any other counselling.”

However, there is no word in the aforesaid judgment that in case a student or a candidate surrenders the allotted seat after taking admission, entire tuition fee or the security fee shall be forfeited. 

7. Similar issue had come before the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Arun Kumar (supra), where the Hon’ble National Commission had first given reference of the circular dated 23.4.2017 issued by the University Grants Commission and thereafter in para 6 has held as under :-

“6.     It would thus be seen that the entire amount collected from the student was required to be refunded after deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/- in a case where the student withdrew from the programme.  In the event of the student leaving after joining the course and the seat so vacated by him being filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the university was to return the fee collected from him with proportionate deduction of monthly fee and proportionate hostel fee wherever applicable.”

8. Similarly while relying upon the said circular, the Hon’ble National Commission has categorized four situations, each of which defines in which case fees and security deposited by a candidate can be refunded or the same shall be forfeited to the institute and the said situations are :-

1. In the event of student leaving the course after joining it, he would be entitled to deduction of proportionate fee and other charges provided that the seat vacated by him is filled up by admitting another student.
2. In the event of the student not joining the course at all, he would be entitled to refund of the entire fee and other charges paid by him after deduction of the processing fee, provided that the seat so vacated on account of withdrawal by him is filled up by the university/institution.
3. In the event of the student not joining the course and seat vacated by him also not being filled up, he is not entitled to any refund at all since the university cannot be deprived of the fee which it had collected against the seat allotted to such a student.  Since in case the entire amount deposited by him is refunded without filling up the seat vacated by him, it would result in substantial loss to the university/institution which made arrangements including providing infrastructure for all students who are granted admission in course.
4. If the seat so vacated by such a student remains vacant on account of late withdrawal of admission by him, the university is not required to refund the amount deposited by him.

9. In the case in hand, it is an admitted case of the parties that in the first counselling name of the complainant was figuring at Sr.No.90, as is also evident from Annexure 5 i.e. list of candidates institute wise given to Rajshree Medical Research Institute, Bareilly (OP-3) and the said list further reveals that total seats allotted to the said institute were 150.  It is further evident from Annexure 6 i.e. allotment letter 2019 sent by OPs 1 & 2 to the complainant that the complainant was advised to attend Sarojini Naidu Medical College, Agra between 5.7.2019 to 12.7.2019 and she was also asked to submit demand draft of ₹11,30,000/- being tuition fee of OP-3 and in compliance to the same, complainant had deposited an amount of ₹9,00,000/- and ₹2,30,000/- vide two demand drafts dated 9.7.2019 (Annexure 9).  It is further clear from Annexure 10 i.e. list of allotted candidates issued by OPs 1 & 2 that the name of the complainant was reflecting at Sr.No.97 of the list containing names of 150 candidates i.e. the allotted seats to OP-3. As per the case of the complainant, after taking admission, she joined classes of OP-3 institute, but, due to her ill-health, she requested OP-3 for cancellation of the seat through email (Annexure 13) and OP-3 had refunded the entire fee of ₹6,65,000/-, which was deposited by her, and had also handed over the documents to the complainant whereas OPs 1 & 2 had refused to refund the aforesaid amount of ₹13,30,000/- and she is entitled to the same.  The final list of admitted candidates at OP-3 institute issued by OPs 1 & 2 clearly reveals that the name of the complainant did not figure in the list and in her place new candidate has been given admission, making it further clear that after the cancellation of the admission of the complainant, her seat was allotted to another candidate by OP-3.  Thus, one thing is clear from the final list (Annexure 14) of admitted candidates issued by OPs that the case of the complainant falls in the first situation, as referred above, i.e. on vacation of seat by the complainant after joining the course, her seat was filled up by OP-3 by admitting another student and it had already refunded the fee of ₹6,65,000/- to the complainant and at the same time OPs 1 & 2 have no legal right to keep the said tuition fee or the security amount i.e. total amount of ₹13,30,000/- (₹11,30,000/- as tuition fee + ₹2,00,000/- as security) especially when neither OP-3 nor OPs 1 & 2 have suffered any substantial loss due to the cancellation of the allotted seat of the complainant. Hence, complainant has successfully proved deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 & 2 and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against them. 
10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint partly succeeds against OPs 1 & 2, the same is hereby partly allowed against OPs 1 & 2 and they are directed as under :-

1. to immediately refund the amount of ₹11,30,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 21.9.2020 till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11. This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-3, which is otherwise a proforma OP, the consumer complaint against it is dismissed with no order as to costs.  
13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 25/11/2022 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member