PRESENT

          Complainant  by Adv. Shri. Dharma Suradkar  present.                                                           

         Opponent  by Adv.Shri.  Hemant C. Naik present.                       

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President. )

1. The complainant paid Rs. 2,05,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs Five Thousand only) as admission fees to the opponent Institute for B.Tech-I on 8^th August 2009. It is alleged, that complainant’s son was minor when he signed the said form, hence contract is not legal and valid. The complainant cancelled the admission by its application for cancellation dated 15^th September 2009.
2. The complainant stated that he sent letter dated 17^th September 2009 and 3^rd November 2009 to opponent for refund of the fees, after deducting appropriate charges. He sent letter on 21^st September 2009 to the AICTE regarding the refund by opponent.
3. The opponent shown inability to refund the paid fees on the ground of notification dated 8^th September 2009 vide letter dated 16^th November 2009. It is stated that said notification was not brought to notice of complainant, hence same is not binding on him.
4. The complainant alleged that, opponent offered Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) as refund and forfeited remaining amount as there was delay of three days for applying for refund.
5. The complainant alleged that, opponent has given admission to Mr. Yash another student of same name. The opponent has illegally forfeited amount and thus adopted unfair trade practice.
6. The complainant sent notice dated 12^th September 2011 and requested for refund of fees, which is not replied by opponent. It is prayed for direction to opponent for refund of fees with interest at 18% per annum and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand ) and cost.
7. The complaint filed by complainant was admitted on 19^th October 2011. The opponent filed a Written Statement on 25^th July 2012 and submitted that complaint is not maintainable and is an abuse of process of law. There is no cause of action and same is filed with malafide intention to harass opponent to yield to his illegal demands.
8. The opponent stated that, as per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court Educational Institution imparting education is not a business. It is stated that as per notification issued by opponent dated 8^th September 2009 no refund was to be given after closing date.
9. The opponent stated that complainant took admission on 8^th August 2009 and the classes commenced from 16^th August 2009 and attended lectures till 14^th September 2009. It is stated that complainant cancelled the admission on his own on 15^th September 2009 after closing date of admission i.e. 12^th September 2009.
10. The opponent stated that, notification issued by Institute is in consonance with public notice issued by AICTE. Hence complainant is not entitled for refund. All other allegations are denied and prayed that complaint be dismissed with cost.
11. We have heard both sides. Perused fee receipt, copies of application for cancellation dated 15th September 2009, letter dated 17^th September 2009, 3^rd November 2009 and 16^th November 2009. Perused notification dated 8^th September 2009, Public notice issued by member secretary and all documents.
12. Admittedly complainant took admission and attended classes for about a month and paid total fees of one year. The complainant claimed refund after appropriate deduction. The opponent decided refund Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand ) and retain Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs ).
13. The opponent is relying on the date of notification dated 8^th September 2009, which provides last date of withdrawal i.e. 12^th September 2009. The opponent was legitimately expected to declare the last date within reasonable time in advance.
14. The complainant paid amount on 8^th August, 2009, college commenced on 16^th August 2009 and notification is dated 8^th September 2009 which provides last date 12^th September 2009. The opponent was under obligation to publish last date of cancellation giving fairly reasonable time.
15. The opponent is not justified to issue notification and permits time of four days. The opponent has not proved by proper evidence that financial loss was caused to Institute due to cancellation of admission. The complainant alleged that admission was given to other student in complaint and affidavit.
16. We have carefully studied the legal submission and come to conclusion that consumer complaint for refund of admission fees on withdrawal of admission is maintainable. The complainant requested for refund and agreed for deduction of legitimate amount.
17. The object of using public notice by member secretary, (AICTE) is to put restrictions on educational institutions, for confiscating fees and retention of original documents. The said notice provides for punitive action including withdrawal of approval of erring institutions. The purpose of said notice is to prevent commercialisation of technical education.
18. We are of the view that, opponent is not justified to forfeit 97% of amount relying on own Notification dated 8^th September 2009 providing only four days time i.e. 12^th September 2009 as closing date of admission. This unilateral declaration of opponent cannot be termed as an agreement between the parties.
19. Considering the fact that complainant attended college, opponent is justified to retain reasonable fee, we feel it proper to direct opponent to refund 65% fees and retain 35% fees and pay the same with interest at 9% from the date of submission of cancellation application i.e. 15^th September 2009

20.    In the result, we pass the following order.

                                         O R D E R

1.       RBT Complaint case No.436/2011  is partly allowed.

2.      The opponent is directed to pay Rs.1,33,500/- (Rs. One Lac Thirty-three Thousand Five Hundred ) to complainant with interest at

          9% per annum from 15^th September 2009 till payment.

3.       No order as to cost.

4.      Copy of this order be sent to both parties.