Delhi

StateCommission

A/875/2014

HARSH VARDHAN SAINI - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURU GOVIND SINGH INDERPRASTA UNIVERSITY - Opp.Party(s)

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :16.12.2016

 

First Appeal No. 875/2014

 

(Arising out of the order dated 4.814 passed in Complaint Case No.255/2011 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi.)

 

In the matter of

HARSH VARDHAN SAINI

R/O 477, Hardev puri, Gautam Nagar

New Delhi-110049

 

……Appellant

 

Versus

The Registrar

Guru Govind Singh Inderprasta University

16 C Dwarka, New Delhi.

 

…Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the      judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.             This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act) wherein prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 4.8.14 passed by the CDRF-VII, Sheikh Sarai in CC kNo.255/2011 whereby the aforesaid complaint case has been dismissed.
2.             The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are as under:-

            A complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) was filed by the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum alleging therein that the appellant/complainant got admission with the respondent/OP i.e. Guru Govind Singh Inderprasta University through entrance exam and joined on 8.8.10 in Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management, Dwarka. He attended about five days in college and did not understood the lectures and was also not feeling good, so he decided to discontinue the classes. Information in this regard was sent to the respondent/OP vide letter dated 6.9.10 and request was made for refund of fees. He pursued the matter with respondent/OP but fee was not refunded. Ultimately appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for refund of fee of Rs.58,ooo/- alongwith litigation charges of Rs.30,000/- and for compensation for mental harassment Rs.50,000/-.

            The complaint was contested by the respondent/OP by filing written statement wherein it was alleged that the appellant/complainant had taken different stand for discontinuing the class as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed. It was also alleged that all the terms and conditions of prospectus were understood by the appellant/complainant and withdrawal of admission was not permissible as the date of withdrawal was already over. It was also alleged that the appellant/complainant took admission in second counseling and after appellant/complainant had withdrawn, the seat remained vacant for the whole year and in these circumstances the appellant/complainant was not entitled for withdrawal of fee.

3.             Appellant/complainant had filed rejoinder denying the averments made in the written statement and had reinstated the stand taken in complaint case.
4.             Both the parties filed evidence in the form of affidavit.
5.             After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties, the Ld. District Forum relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Surbhi Singh Vs. The Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University W.P. (C) 1820/2012 decided on 28.1.14, dismissed the complaint case.
6.             Aggrieved by the aforesaid order present appeal is filed.
7.             No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant despite awaiting. No material ground of challenge is stated in the appeal except that the admission was provisional.
8.             Counsel for the respondent/OP has contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 
9.             The observations of the High Court of Delhi in Surbhi Singh Vs. The Guru Govind Singh Inderprastha University (Supra) as noted in the impugned order are as under:-

            “Admittedly once the second counseling session starts, no further seat         can be made available for admission. Any seat that falls vacant after            the second counseling commences, remains vacant for the entire          academic year of the respective course and the respondent University      can not fill such a seat. Consequently, in the present case, as the      petitioner’s seat has gone vacant and no student was enrolled in place             of the petitioner in accordance with the policy of the respondent           University, this Court is of the view that the petitioner’s reliance on the             UGC public notice dated 23^rd April, 2007 is contrary to facts and        untenable in law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed but   with no order as to costs.”

10.             It is admitted position that the appellant/complainant took admission with respondent/OP University in MCA programme and was allotted Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management, Dwarka and he joined the said college on 8.8.10. As per the respondent/complainant he had sent a letter dated 6.9.10 for withdrawal from the admission. It is also not denied by the appellant/ complainant that last date of withdrawal was 20.8.10. The stand of the respondent/OP was that the aforesaid date was also stated in the terms and conditions of the prospectus. The appellant/complainant had applied for withdrawal of admission after the prescribed date was over. It has also come on record that since the appellant/complainant did not withdraw within the prescribed period, the seat allotted to the appellant/complainant remained vacant for the whole year.  In these circumstances the appellant/complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount.  In the facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the judgment of the High Court, Delhi in Surbhi Singh (Supra) the Ld. District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint case.
11.             Even the contention of the appellant/complainant that on the admission slip issued by respondent/OP, it was mentioned “Provisional Admission Slip” as such respondent/OP ought to have refunded the fee. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/OP has pointed that same is mentioned in all the admission slips as admission is subject to verification of documents etc. The contention raised has no force and is rejected.
12.             It may also be mentioned that the Ld.  Counsel for the respondent/OP has also pointed out the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.22532/2012 titled as P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. and Civil Appeal No. 6807 of 2008 titled as Maharashi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (011)  wherein it is held that the education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore in matter of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency of service.
13.             We find no illegality in the impugned order. In view of thee above discussions, we dismissed the appeal.
14.             The appeal stands dismissed.
15.             A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi.

 

                     File be consigned to record room.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member