Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1068/2017

Principal Mody School Lakshmangarh Sikar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Geetanjali Parmar D/o Mahendra Jeet - Opp.Party(s)

Samarth Sharma

19 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1068/2017

 

Principal, Mody School, Lakshmangarh,Sikar & ors.

Vs.

Geetanjali Parmar d/o Mahendra Jeet Singh r/o F-459, Govt. Quarters, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 19.12.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr.Samarth Sharma counsel for the appellant

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by

 

2

 

the District Forum, Sikar dated 26.7.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that as per the rules if a student leaves the programme between an academic year only caution money could be refunded and the Consumer Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the claim should have been rejected.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as photo copies of the documents submitted by the appellant.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that as per manual of rules the refund policy says that only caution money and balance of personal charges could be refunded if a student withdraws in between an academic year but these rules seems to be in derogation of the directions issued by University Grant Commission on 22.6.2011 which clearly provides that in case a student leaves after joining the course and seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate the fee collected should have been proportionately

3

 

refunded. Here in the present case the contention of the appellant is that after withdrawal of the respondent no student was admitted on her seat but this seems to be false as in June 2011 the total student present in the course were 19 where as in July 2011 and March 2012 it rises to 29 and 24 respectively. Hence, it can very well be concluded that the seat was never remained vacant after withdrawal of the respondent.

 

The contention of the appellant is that seat which was vacant due to withdrawal of the respondent was never filled as total students in the course were 43. Be that may be the case after withdrawal of the respondent other students were admitted and consequently the seat filled vacant on the event of withdrawal of the respondent has not been remained vacant and as per the circular of the University Grant Commission the fees should have been refunded proportionately and deficiency on the part of the appellant has rightly been considered by the Forum below.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that as matter relates to educational institution the Forum below was not having jurisdiction and reliance has been placed on (2010) 11

4

 

Supreme Court Cases 159 Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur but this contention has never been raised before the Forum below hence, not acceptable.

 

In view of the above , there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands rejected.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm