DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.186 of 5.7.2007<br /> Decided on : 6.9.2007 <br /> <br /> Sheikhar Dhir S/o Sh. Padam Kumar, R/o 10, Gandhi Colony, New Model Town, Ludhiana. <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> 1.Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Dabwali Road, Bathinda through its Principal.<br /> 2.The President/Principal, Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Dabwali Road, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant had got admission in B.E (Mechanical) in Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Dabwali Road, Bathinda (opposite party No.1) on 10.7.2006. A sum of Rs. 38,571/- was got deposited by the opposite parties from him vide receipt No.27/2639 dated 10.7.2006 on account of fee and securities. College was joined by him on 1.8.2006. He had already applied for admission in B.E (Mechanical) in GNE, Ludhiana. Counseling for the same was scheduled for 1.8.2006. He got admission in B.E (Mechanical) in GNE, Ludhiana which is under the umbrella of Punjab Technical University. In this regard, complainant had intimated the opposite parties in writing through letter and fax message requesting them to treat his seat in their college in B.E (Mechanical) as surrendered and to reimburse/refund his aforesaid fee and security after deducting an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. He had surrendered seat when admissions were going on in the college of the opposite parties. He alleges that opposite parties have already accommodated student in lieu of his seat. He repeatedly requested the opposite parties to refund/reimburse the fee and security, but they continued putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. He also got served registered notice through his counsel on 27.10.2006. Opposite parties neither refunded the amount nor sent reply of the notice. A few days before the filing of the complaint, they flately refused to accede to his request. His allegation is that the act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. In these circumstances, complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to reimburse him an amount of Rs. 38,571/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A from the date of deposit till realization; pay him Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental and physical tension, besides costs of the complaint. <br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainant is not consumer; he is estopped from filing the complaint and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that fee and securities were deposited by the complainant as per rules and regulations of the University published in the information Brochure on the basis of which admission was taken. Request for surrendering the seat was submitted belatedly on 14.8.2006 after the expiry of cut off date i.e. 7.8.2006 as fixed by the University Authorities. Only security to the tune of RS. 5,000/- was refundable which was duly refunded vide cheque No. 088316 dated 6.9.2006. Legal notice got served by the complainant is meaningless. They have acted as per rules. They deny deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Sheikhar Dhir complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), fee receipt dated 10.7.2006 (Ex.C.2), copy of legal notice (Ex.C.3), postal receipt (Ex.C.4), photocopies of letters (Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.7 to Ex.C.10) respectively, photocopy of fax message (Ex.C.6) & cutting of newspaper (Ex.C.11). <br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Dr. Harpal Singh, photocopy of extract from Information Brochure (Ex.R.2), photocopy of letter (Ex.R.3) & photocopy of No Dues Certificate (Ex.R.4).<br /> 5. Fact that complainant had got admission in B.E (Mechanical) in opposite party No.1 on 10.7.2006, is not in dispute. On its basis, a sum of Rs. 38,571/- was deposited towards fee and securities etc. vide receipt Ex.C.2 and joined in opposite party No.1 on 1.8.2006. Thereafter, he took admission in B.E (Mechanical) in GNE, Ludhiana.<br /> 6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant had intimated opposite party No.1 about the surrendering of his seat and that the seat vacated by him has been given to another student and as such, opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs. 38,571/- which was got deposited from the complainant on account of fee and securities etc. For this, he drew our attention to the documents Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.11.<br /> 7. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established from the evidence on the record, particularly when complainant moved application for surrendering his seat on 14.8.2006.<br /> 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. Ex.R2 is the copy of the extract from the information Brochure CET-2006 published by Punjab Technical University, Jallandhar. Its rule 7 (b) is relevant for the disposal of this complaint. It is reproduced as under :- <br /> “Tuition fee and other charges paid by the candidate shall be refundable (after deducting 10% of the tuition fee of the first semester) only if the candidate has surrendered the seat with the respective college by 7th August, 2006 under intimation to the University.<br /> No refund shall be admissible after this cut off date.” <br /> 9. As per rule referred to above, the cut off date for surrendering the seat by the candidate/student was 7.8.2006. Now question arises as to whether complainant surrendered the seat occupied by him in B.E (Mechanical) in opposite party No.1 on or before 7.8.2006. The reply to our minds is in the negative. No-doubt, complainant in his affidavit Ex.C.1 and copy of the legal notice Ex.C.3 sent through his counsel has reiterated the version in the complaint. His this version stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of Dr. Harpal Singh, Principal of opposite party No.1 and from documents Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.4. Complainant has failed to establish that information for surrendering the seat was given to opposite party No.1 on or before 7.8.2006. Ex.C.5 is the copy of the letter shown to have been sent to the Principal of opposite party No.1 on 7.8.2006. No postal receipt of this letter is on the record to show that it was despatched. Opposite parties deny the receipt of this letter. In the absence of evidence of its despatch by the complainant and receipt by opposite party No.1, no weight can be attached to it. Even if this documents is considered for arguments sake, it is conditional one. It cannot be treated to be a letter through which complainant surrendered his seat. Rider has been put through this letter that in case he is selected in GNE, it would not be possible for him to continue his seat in opposite party No.1 and in that case, his seat be considered surrendered. Ex.C.6 is the copy of the fax message. This document is of no consequence. Opposite parties deny its receipt. It is undated. No fax confirmatory receipt is on the record to show that this fax message sent was received by opposite party No.1. In these circumstances, conclusion is that before cut off date i.e. 7.8.2006, no intimation was sent by the complainant for surrendering his seat to the opposite parties. Opposite parties admit that letter about the surrendering of the seat was received by opposite party No. 1 on 14.8.2006. In this respect Ex.R.3 is the copy of the letter which was received on 14.8.2006. Complainant has also signed it on 14.8.2006. Accordingly, complainant sent intimation about the surrendering of the seat on 14.8.2006 i.e. after cut off date which was 7.8.2006. According to rule 7(b), no refund is admissible after cut off date i.e. 7.8.2006. Rule 7 (b) is binding upon the complainant in view of the observations of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Subhash Chandra VS. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research-1997(3)Recent Services Judgments 346 in which it was held that terms and conditions of the brochure are binding upon the candidates as well as the institute. Once the fee after the cut off date is not refunded, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In case, complainant considers the rule as unconscionable as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant, he can knock the door of the civil court. For this, reference may be made to the view expressed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Vs. Gunita Virk-I(1996)CPJ-37 in which it was held that suffice it to say that the Foras constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal. It is for the civil court to determine this point. Complainant left opposite party No. 1 voluntarily. It is not a case where opposite party No.1 is at fault or has refused to impart education. It remained willing to render services undertaken by it. In such a situation as well, non-refund of admission fee etc. is not a deficiency in service. For this, reference may be made to the authorities International Institute of Information and Technology Vs. Sumer Singh-II(2005)CPJ-233, Ms. Swati Aneja Vs. Dev Samaj College for Women & Another-2002(2)CPC-497, Ramdeobaba Engineering College Vs. Sushant Yuvraj Rode & Another-III(1994)CPJ-160 (NC), Consumer Association of Haryana Vs. D.A.V Public School-1999(1)CPC-33 and Pydah College Vs. E. Mohan Rao & Anr.-II(1998)CPJ-607.<br /> 10. Only security of Rs. 5,000/- was liable to be refunded which has been duly refunded vide cheque No. 088316 dated 6.9.2006 as is evident from the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Dr. Harpal Singh.<br /> 11. In the premises written above, conclusion is that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 6.9.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg'<br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />