This appeal by complainant   is directed against the  order dated 20.4.2009 whereby her  complaint bearing  No.1222 of 2008  seeking refund of fee was dismissed.

2.       The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..       The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

The complainant got admission in OP College in M.Com Ist Year on 3.7.2008 and deposited the fee  of Rs.28,180/- vide receipt Annexure C-1. In the meanwhile, she also got admission in Panjab University, Chandigarh on 14.7.2008 in MBA (Banking & Insurance) Course and  there she deposited the requisite fee of Rs.1,29.377 + Rs.10,000/- vide receipts Annexures C-2 & C-3.  She immediately on the same very day i.e. 14.7.2008 intimated the OP College about her admission in Panjab University and surrendered her seat with a request to refund the fee of Rs.28180/-.  It was alleged  that at the time of surrendering the seat by the complainant, the admission process was going on in OP College.  She was advised to wait for a week but no response was received for a sufficiently long time. When nothing positive was done in the matter for a long time, complainant then through her counsel  got served  legal notice dated 12.8.2008 upon OP seeking refund of the fee. In response to the legal notice, OP vide letter dated 26.8.2009  intimated to the complainant that the application for refund of fee was pending with the committee constituted for the purpose and the same would be considered after 31.8.2009.  It was  also alleged that as per the handbook 2008-09-cum-Prospectus of OP College there were only 30 seats of M.Com and the normal admission was from 8.7.2008 to 15.7.2008, later admission to be allowed by the Principal with late fee was from 16.7.2008 to 28.7.2008 and late admission with late fee with the permission of V.C. was from 29.7.2008 to 31.8.2008 .  All 30 seats were filled-up during the normal admission period.  It was  further alleged that the complainant did not attend any class and surrendered the seat well in advance when the admission process was going on and as such the complainant did not avail any service of the college. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.    

4.         On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that  the OP received the letter of complainant seeking refund of fee only after 15.7.2008 through post and thereafter    when the complainant herself approached the  OP in first week of Aug., 2008 for refund of fee, she was informed that her application is pending with the Committee constituted for the purpose and the same would be considered after 31.8.2008, which was the last date of admissions in the College with permission of Vice Chancellor.    It was stated that the seats for M.Com Ist year course were enhanced from 30 seats to 40 seats by the Panjab University, Chandigarh vide their letter dated 9.7.2008 but   only 37  seats for M.Com Ist Year Course were   filled. It was pleaded that as  the seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant throughout the year, so as per the guidelines of UGC the complainant was not entitled for the refund of fee and other dues. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

 5.          The learned District Consumer Forum after going through  evidence  and hearing the learned counsel for parties came to the conclusion that the complainant herself voluntarily surrendered the seat in OP college and the same remained vacant throughout the year, therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of OP and complainant was not entitled  to get the refund of her admission fee.  This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, complainant      has   come up in this appeal.  

6.         We have heard  learned counsel for the  parties and have gone through  the file carefully. The learned counsel for appellant/complainant contended that the complainant took admission in M.Com Ist year on 3.7.2009 and at that time there were only 30 seats which were increased later on. The complainant  intimated OP on 14.7.2008 about her getting admission in MBA in Punjab University and requested for refund of fee. The complainant did not attend the class even for a single day as the admission process at that  time was continue and the last date of admission was 31.8.2008. The learned counsel for complainant further contended that University Grants Commission, New Delhi had issued instructions for refund of fee in such cases where a student leaves the institute before start of the session.  The Hon’ble National Commission by following the said instructions of University Grants Commission  had ordered refund of fee in those cases where the student had surrendered the seat before the start of session. In support of his contention he also relied upon the following rulings ;

            (i) M.V.J.College of Engineering Vs Tukaram Rao

                2009(1) CLT-154 ( National Commission)

          (ii) Comed-K Vs T.Nagamani

               II(2009)CPJ 314 (NC)

          (ii) The Director, INIFD Vs Ms.Preetika Sharma

                 (Appeal case NO.214/2009 decided on 23.10.2009)

                  State Commission, U.T.Chandigarh.

7.         On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP argued that the complainant had given declaration which was duly signed by her and her father Saudagar Singh to the effect that if she withdrew herself from the college, she would not claim the refund. He further argued that the seats of M.com-Ist year were enhanced from 30 to 40 seats by the Punjab University, Chandigarh vide their letter dated 9.7.2008 and the request for refund of fee was received  only on 15.7.2009. The seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant throughout the year as only 37 seats were filled out of 40 and as such complainant is not entitled to refund of fee.  To support his point of arguments, he also referred to the following rulings ;

(i)                 Gitika Kapoor Vs Gugaranwala Guru Nanak Institue of Management and Technology

2009(1)CPC 31 (National Commission).

(ii)               Manish Chaudhary Vs Orbit Educational & Research Foundation & Anr.

2007(1)CPC 323 (National Commission)

                    (iii)     Khalsa college for Women Vs Harleen Kaur & Ors.

                                 2008(2)CPC 678 (Punjab State Commission)

(iii)             Gugaranwala Guru Nanak Institue of Management and Technology & Anr Vs Gitika Kapoor

2008(2)CPC 16 (Punjab State Commission)

 9.        We have given  our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by  learned counsel for the parties and find no force in the plea raised on behalf of  OP, inasmuch-as it is an admitted  case where complainant had not attended the class even for a  single day in the college of OP, so, no service whatsoever was ever provided to her (complainant).  We have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for OP and find that  in fact the facts contained therein are quite at variance of the facts in hand, therefore no benefit can be derived by OP from the observations made therein by their lordships, inasmuch-as in the first  two  cited authorities i.e. Gitika Kapoor  and Manish Chaudhary the students had left the courses in midway. In the case of Khalsa college for women  Vs Harleen Kaur  the student remained absent  from the college and her name was struck off  on account of her continuous absence whereas in the last case   the student had not given any intimation to the college about her absence.  Here in the instant case the student did not attend the classes even for a single day and she surrendered her seat before the start of session when the admission process was going on . The OP college could get admitted students from the waitlisted students. Even otherwise when the complainant took admission  on 3.7.2008 there were only 30 seats and thereafter the seats were enhanced  and ultimately  37  seats were  filled.   In the circumstances of the case any term and condition incorporated in the admission form for not refunding the admission fee is held to be arbitrary and against the ethics  which is not binding upon the complainant.

10.       It is  also pertinent to mention here that the OP has placed reliance upon annexure R-8 which is letter dated 4-6-2007 circulated by University Grants Commission regarding refund of fee. In this letter, it is recited that the UGC had issued a public notice dated 23.4.2007 regarding the refund of fee and return of original documents to the students who for one reason or the other opt out of an institution after taking admission.  The relevant abstract of the public notice dated 23.4.2007 is reproduced as under ;

“The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the  waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (one thousand only)  shall be refunded and returned by the institution/university to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme.”

11        A perusal of the above public notice shows that   the University Grants Commission has taken notice  of    unfair trade practice; rather unethical standard of the teaching institutions to swallow the  amount of admission .  The instructions issued by  University Grants Commission  still hold good and have not been set aside by any competent court of law. Thus, we have no option but to go by the same.

12.        In view of our foregoing discussion,  we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The complaint is allowed in the following   terms ;

OP shall refund the course fee of Rs.28180/- to the complainant  by deducting Rs.1000/- as processing fee,  within one month from the date the copy of the order is received, failing which OP shall be liable to  pay interest @ 7% p.a from the date of complaint till actual realization. Parties shall bear their own costs.  

            Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.