MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 7.1.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 413 of 2010 vide which, it disposed of the complaint and directed OP No.1 to return the original certificates of the complainant on receipt of the details of the documents from the complainant, if nothing found due against him, within 10 days, failing which, OP No.1 would be liable to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- alongwith original certificates.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the son of the complainant (Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh Sachan) was allotted seat in the institute of OP through Punjab Technical University (PTU) Counselling held on 30.7.2007 at Jalandhar under general category 15% outside Punjab quota. It was stated that before this AICTE, the controlling authority of Technical Education, issued Public Notice in April, 2007 that no Engineering College shall keep original certificate of any student and allow him to withdraw from program/institution after deducting Rs.1000/- of fee. It was further stated that the son of the complainant got better option in Haryana State through online counseling and he submitted his written request, on 24.8.2007, to return his original certificates but OP No.1, deliberately refused to do so, even after repeated requests and reminders. It was further stated that his son struggled for the whole year for his original certificates deposited with OP No.1 but all in vain. Finally, he was not left with any option than to get duplicate certificates within the short period in June, 2008 by spending huge money. It was further stated that under approved norms of re-appearing in AIEEE-2008 competition, his son left OP No.1 institute on 16.6.2008, and jointed B.Tech 1^st year again in Uttarakhand Technical University (UTU), Dehradun on 18.7.2008, and, thus, OP No.1 spoiled one year of the career of his son. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by OP No.1, wherein, it admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the son of the complainant left the course after passing the 1^st year i.e. (two semesters) of his course after retaining the seat for more than one year. This fact was established from the letter dated 16.6.2008 written by the complainant.  Moreover, he never surrendered the seat but left the institute, due to his personal reasons. It was further stated that the complaint was liable to be dismissed, on the ground, that it was filed by an incompetent person, as the complainant never availed of the services of OP No.1, but it was the son of the complainant, who availed of their services and, as such, only his son was competent to file the complaint. It was further stated that the complainant could not claim the refund of fee, as per the AICTE norms, which specifically declare that if the seat surrendered by the student remained vacant for the whole academic session, in that eventuality, the student could not claim refund of fee. In the present case, the seat surrendered by him remained vacant for whole of the academic session.  It was further stated that the complainant never visited OP No.1 to receive the said certificates. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OP No.1, nor he indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.         Reply was filed by OP No.2, wherein, it was stated that the OP No.2 had issued a notice to OP No.1 vide its letter dated 22.12.2009, and, on receipt of the said notice, OP No.1 clarified the issue to the effect that the student left the college without intimation, after passing 2^nd semester and, as such, he was not entitled to the refund of fee. It was further stated that with regard to getting the original documents/certificates, OP No.1 could be directed to return the same, on receipt of the details of the same from the complainant, if nothing was found due against him. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.         The learned District Forum, disposed of the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the order.  

7.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant, filed the instant appeal.

8.         We have heard the appellant/complainant in person, Sh.Harinder Kumar,
Advocate for respondent No.1, and have perused the record, carefully.

 9.        The appellant/complainant contended that his son was allotted seat in the institute of OPs through Punjab Technical University (PTU) Counselling held on 30.7.2007. Thereafter, his son got better option in Haryana State through online Counselling and he submitted his written request on 24.8.2007, to return his original certificates. He further contended that his son submitted his written request to OP No.1, to return his original certificates, but despite the public notice of A.I.C.T.E, no Engineering College could keep the original certificates of any student.  It was further contended that for one year admission, SVIET had charged fees of two years deliberately because the original certificates were in its hands. It was further contended that the original certificates were withheld by OP No.1 and, thus, one precious year of career of the son of complainant was spoiled. The appellant demanded the reimbursement of money spent in arranging duplicates certificates and expenditure involved in preparing and reappearing in AIEEE-2008.

10.       The learned Counsel for OP No.1, contended that after passing the 1^st year of his course, the son of the complainant left their institution, without any reason. It was further contended that as per the guidelines of PTU and AICTE, he was not entitled to any refund, because the son of the complainant had withdrawn of his own, from their institution. It was further contended that when the son of the complainant left the institution, without any intimation then 12 seats remained vacant in CSE during the session. It was further contended that as per the AICTE norms, the complainant could not claim refund of fee, which specifically declare that if the seat surrendered by the student remained vacant for the whole academic session, in that eventuality, the student could not claim refund.

11.          Admittedly, the son of the complainant, after passing the first year of course, left the institution of OP No.1 of his own. As per the guidelines of the PTU and AICTE the complainant was not entitled to the refund of fee because the seat surrendered by him remained vacant for whole of the academic session. The complainant, in this case, left the course in between, and the seat allotted to him remained vacant throughout the year. The complainant also failed to produce any document to prove that the seat vacated by him, was filled up and, as such, no financial loss occurred to the institute of OP No.1. In this situation, we are of the considered opinion that OP No.1 did not commit any illegality by not refunding the amount, as demanded by the complainant.

OP No.1 committed an illegality by not returning the original certificates of the complainant as in view of the guidelines the Controlling Authority of Technical Education no Engineering College could keep the original certificates of any student. OP No.1 was guilty of withholding the original certificates of the son of complainant. In the absence of the original certificates, the complainant was forced to procure the duplicate certificates, which were necessary, in order to get admission in other college, for which, he had to incur expenses and he and his son were put to inconvenience. Due to this reason, they also suffered a lot of mental agony. The Ops were deficient, in service, and indulged into unfair trade practice, in not returning the original certificates to the son of the complainant.

12.       At the time of arguments, the complainant submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, he received a registered envelope from OP No.1, which he had not opened as yet. The learned Counsel for OP No.1 submitted that vide this envelope, the original certificates of the son of complainant were sent by the OP No.1. From this submission of the learned Counsel for OP No.1, it has been proved that the OP No.1 has sent the original certificate of the son of complainant very late. The complainant is, thus, definitely entitled to compensation.

13.       In this view of the matter, we partly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order, to the extent, as mentioned above. We direct OP No.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. We further direct OP No.1 to comply with the aforesaid orders within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the interest @ 9% p.a. shall be paid by OP No.1, from the date of receipt of this order, till its realization.       

14.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. 

Pronounced.                                                                        

25^th August, 2011.