DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Gaurav Garg s/o Sh. Pardeep Garg, House No.1108, Sector 60, Phase 3B2, Mohali.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Goswami Ganesh Dutta Sanatan Dharma College, Sector 32, Chandigarh, through its Principal.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Adv. for the complainant

                        OP exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Gaurav Garg has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

(i)                to refund the fee of Rs.22,637/- alongwith interest

(ii)             to pay Rs.35,000/- as compensation

(iii)           to pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

(iv)           to pay Rs.12,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was a regular student of B.Com Part I with the opposite party and was declared successful in B.Com Part-I by the Panjab University, Chandigarh.  Thereafter, he took admission in B.Com Part-II with the opposite party and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.22,637/- vide receipt 25.6.2010 (C-1). 

According to the complainant, he qualified the IPCE Group 1 Exam. Conducted by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India held in May 2010.  In the 2^nd week of August, 2010, he joined the training for Articleship by the Chartered Accountant Firm Deloitte Haskins and Sells at Gurgaon.  It has been averred that his mother submitted an application on 25.8.2010 requesting the opposite party to issue him (complainant) NOC/TC on qualifying his IPCE Group 1 exam as he has become eligible for three years training under registered Chartered Accountant.  It has also been averred that the opposite party committed to refund the fee/funds/security after filling the vacant seat.

According to the complainant, his mother submitted an application dated 3.12.2010 (C-2) for refund of fee/funds and security.  As the opposite party failed to refund the fee/funds/security, so the complainant sent a notice dated 28.6.2011 (C-3).  However, the opposite party did not refund the fee despite service of legal notice dated 11.5.2012 (C-4).

According to the complainant, failure on the part of the opposite party to refund the fee amounts to deficiency in service.

In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           None appeared on behalf of the opposite party despite service.  Hence, it was proceeded against exparte.

4.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           According to the complainant vide letter dated 25.8.2010 his mother applied to the opposite party for issuing NOC/TC on qualifying his IPCE Group 1 exam.  However, he has failed to place on record any such letter.   Annexure C-2 is the first letter vide which the mother of the complainant informed the opposite party about his (complainant’s) selection for articleship at Deolite Gurgaon and requested for refund of the fee.  However, the said letter is dated 3.12.2010 and by that time the admissions were over and the opposite party was not in a position to admit any person in place of the complainant. In order to establish that he had submitted application for refund of the fee immediately upon his selection, it was for the complainant to adduce some cogent documentary evidence.  However, he has failed to do so. Hence, we are of the view that the request for refund of the fee on the part of the complainant was highly belated and opposite party was justified in refusing the same.

6.                           In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this complaint.  The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

7.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26.09.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg