BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 18 of 2018
Date of Institution : 9.1.2018
Date of Decision : 27.9.2018.
Ashok Kumar aged about 28 years son of Shri Duli Chand, resident of #353, Gali No.6, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Directorate of Distance Education, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ………… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rakesh Kashnia, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. J.N. Monga, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is a lawyer by profession and is practicing as such in District Courts, Sirsa since year 2016. That complainant on 20.9.2017 online applied for admission in LL.M. through Distance Education in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and filled up the online form of the University and a sum of Rs.9500/- was deducted by the University from the bank account of the complainant qua the admission fee. An e-mail message was received by the complainant vide which the deduction of Rs.9500/- was confirmed by the University. It is further averred that as per form filled up by the complainant, he had to deposit some requisite and relevant documents with the university as mentioned in the form and in compliance of the same the complainant sent the requisite documents to the University on 25.9.2017 through registered post. But despite sending the requisite and relevant documents required by the university, the complainant did not receive any confirmation regarding his admission. After waiting for sufficient time, the complainant tried to contact the concerned authorities on their helpline numbers provided by the university on their internet site but to the surprise of the complainant, the numbers were not available. That finding no other alternative on 12.10.2017 the complainant personally visited Kurukshetra to enquire about the confirmation of his admission in LL.M. and he requested the university authority to confirm his admission but despite making a number of repeated requests, no response was received by the complainant. He on his own level traced out the Diary Number (465) of the documents sent by him vide which the receiving of documents was confirmed by the university. But still the admission of the complainant is yet to be confirmed. It is further averred that complainant made further request to the university authority either to confirm his admission or to refund the amount of admission fee of Rs.9500/- but the university authorities neither confirmed the admission of the complainant nor refunded the amount of fee to him. It was rather suggested by the university authority to first move an application for cancellation of the admission and refund of fee. On 12.10.2017, complainant as suggested by the university immediately moved an application in writing vide diary No.R-4412 for cancellation of his admission and refund of the admission fee but no action was taken by the university. On 7.11.2017, the complainant had received a letter from the University Authorities vide which they claimed the original migration certificate from the complainant but the complainant did not submit the same with the authorities because he did not want to get himself admitted in LL.M rather wanted to get his aforesaid amount of fee refunded. That still the complainant is waiting for the cancellation of the admission and refund of the admission fee. He also tried to contact the university in this regard but the university authority has been avoiding complainant on one pretext or the other and now the university has refused to admit the claim of complainant, hence the complainant on 17.11.2017 had sent a legal notice to the op vide which the complainant called upon the op to refund the amount of admission fee of Rs.9500/- alongwith upto date interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of deduction of the amount till the final realization of the amount and further to pay a sum of Rs.20000/- on account of unnecessary harassment faced by the complainant. After the issuance of legal notice, a letter dated 27.11.2017 was received by complainant vide which it was informed to the complainant that his admission has been cancelled by the op whereas the issue regarding refund of fee was kept pending by the op. The legal notice was duly received by op and in reply to the same, the op confirmed the cancellation of admission of the complainant but refused to refund the amount of fee on false grounds. That not only this, on account of such act and conduct on the part of university, the complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment, humiliation and hardship. The complainant has also lost one precious year of his career, for which he is also entitled to be compensated accordingly. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding cause of action and estoppal. It is submitted that the complainant applied for admission to LL.M(I) through online on 20.9.2017 and remitted the admission fee of Rs.9500/-. The complainant sent his admission form alongwith relevant record to the office of op on 25.9.2017 through registered post and the same were received on 5.10.2017. The admission of complainant was confirmed on 11.10.2017 and DDE Ref. No.137440 was allotted to him on the same day. It is further submitted that nobody from the university suggested the complainant to move application for cancellation of admission and refund of fee. Infact the complainant himself applied for cancellation of admission vide diary no.R-4412 dated 12.10.2017 at his own sweet will and at his own level. The op acted as per provisions of the prospect and hence there is no harassment. It is further submitted that on the written request of the complainant, his admission was cancelled vide office letter no.DDE/S-II/DE-1/17/55335 dated 27.11.2017. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.11.2017 to the op, which was received on 20.11.2017 and reply thereto was sent to Sh. Anshul Sethi, Advocate, Sirsa mentioning therein that fee cannot be refunded to the complainant as per the rules. As per the provisions given in the prospect at page 63 Section VIII (refund of fee), “the fee remitted by the applicant shall not be refunded, if A xxxxx b xxxxx c after being admitted to the Course, the candidate does not want to continue his/her studies on any personal ground”. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence. Ld. counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, learned counsel for op has tendered affidavit of Smt. Manjula Director as Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of the complainant that the complainant had applied for admission in LL.M through distance education through OP university and paid a sum of Rs.9500/- as admission fee, but however, on 12.10.2017 complainant moved an application for cancellation of the admission. The opposite party without taking into consideration the application of the complainant issued a letter on 7.11.2017 that complainant had not sent the migration certificate of the last attended institution despite knowing well that the complainant has already applied for the cancellation of the admission. The op has arbitrarily and illegally has retained the admission fee of Rs.9500/- of the complainant without any rhyme and reason and has not made refund of the fee despite his repeated requests. Learned counsel for complainant has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani & Ors. Vs. Abhishek Mengi, 2013 (2) CPJ 681 wherein it has been held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1) (g), 14(1) (d) and 21(b) Withdrawal of admission- Fee forfeited- Defieicney in service- Complaint allowed- Dismissal of appeal- Challenged by revision- Head, respondent had appeared before Admission Counselling Committee on 29.7.2009 and told Counselling Committee that he is not interested in admission in petitioners institute because he has to attend counseling at PEC- Even he had never attended classes in petitioners institute except on 31.7.2009- No document placed on record to show that seat vacated by respondent was not filled up at all- Thus, refund of fee rightly directed- No infirmity found in impugned order- Revision petition, dismissed. Ld. counsel for complainant has also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble National Commision in case titled as Mody University of Sciences and Technology & anr. Vs. Megha Gupta Revision Petition No.3288 of 2016 decided on 8.12.2016.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has contended that as per the terms and conditions published in the prospectus of the University as well as rules framed by University, once the papers are submitted for admission to the University, thereafter in case the cancellation of admission is sought by a candidate, the University is not bound to refund the admission fee since University had already processed the application for admission and further more the complainant is not entitled for any refund of the admission fee.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record as well as law cited by learned counsel for complainant.
8. The perusal of the record reveals that it is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant had applied for admission in LL.M with the opposite party through distance education and deposited Rs.9500/- with the opposite party. It is further undisputed fact that despite repeated requests of the complainant, the admission was not confirmed by the University rather the op issued a letter on 7.11.2017 by which they had called upon the complainant to submit migration certificate duly issued by last attended institution and in case of non production of same, admission shall be treated as cancelled but it is relevant to mention here that before issuance of this letter complainant had already applied for cancellation of his admission vide his letter dated 12.10.2017. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op has not denied the receipt of this letter dated 12.10.2017 Ex.C4 written by the complainant to op’s authorities. Rather letter Ex.C5 issued by opposite party reveals that they have not considered the letter Ex.C4 of complainant before issuing letter Ex.C5. So, it appears from the evidence of the parties that it was legal obligation of the opposite party to make refund of the admission fee as the complainant had applied well in time to the op for cancellation of his admission. But however, refund has not been given by the opposite party as per the rules placed on record by op alongwith Ex.C8 which provides the provision for refund by which op has right to deduct 25% of the total amount paid by candidate in case admission is cancelled on account of processing charges. We also find force from the above said judgments cited by learned counsel for complainant.
9. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to deduct 25% amount from the amount of Rs.9500/- and to pay the balance amount to the complainant to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to the interest on the actual payable amount @7% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:27.09.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
