DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.620 of 24-12-2012
Decided on 23-04-2013
Sandeep Singh aged about 20 years S/o Hardev Singh R/o Maur Kalan, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.The Principal-cum-Admission Incharge, Guru Kashi University Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda.
2.M.D.,Guru Kashi University Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Arvind Ghai, counsel for complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant got the admission in B.Tech (Mechanical) in the university of the opposite parties and deposited Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.3513 dated 23.7.2012 as admission fee and also deposited the original certificates with them. At the time of seeking the admission, the opposite parties assured the complainant and his parents that if he does not take the admission in the said institute, then they will return the full fee alongwith the original documents to him after deduction of Rs.1000/- only. Due to unfavourable family circumstances the complainant did not take the admission in the University and approached the opposite parties on 25.7.2012 and requested them to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- and original documents to him and moved an application on 25.7.2012 before the commencement of the course, he again moved an application on 17.8.2012 through his father Hardev Singh, but they did not pay any heed to his requests and did not refund the amount deposited by him. The complainant has referred the notification issued by the Punjab Government on dated 4.5.2009 vide notification Nos.13/48/09-ITE2/1508 dated 4.5.2009 (MET-2009) and 13/48/09 ITE2/1502 dated 4.5.2009 (PAM-CAT 2009) regarding the refund of the amount to the students. The complainant many times approached the opposite parties and requested their official to return the amount of Rs.20,000/- and original certificate and also got issued the legal notice on 12.10.2012 but neither they replied to the said legal notice nor refunded the amount of Rs.20,000/- nor returned the original documents to him. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to return the original certificates and Rs.20,000/- deposited by him as admission fee alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that it is clearly mentioned in Rule No.(ii) of the refund of fees that 'in case, a student/candidate withdraws on or after the date of commencement of the course and before the last date of admission, proportionate deduction of semester fee shall be made. The deduction shall be one fourth of the entire semester fee (excluding refundable securities) per month or part thereof, subject to a minimum amount of Rs.1000/- refundable securities shall be returned in full'. In the present case, the complainant attended the classes for two months and as per the said rule he is liable to deposit the fee amounting to Rs.21,000/-(i.e. Rs.10,500/- for each month) to the opposite parties, but he deposited only Rs.20,000/-, in this way he is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1000/-, which is due and outstanding against him. The complainant never approached and requested before the commencing of the course to the opposite parties with regard to refund of his fees as alleged by him. The complainant or his father never moved any applications dated 25.7.2012 or 17.8.2012 with the opposite parties as such when they never approached the opposite parties for the refund of fee no question of refusal arises at all. In fact, the complainant came to the office of the opposite parties on 12.9.2012 and asked their officials to return back his original certificates which were submitted by him at the time of taking admission, and on his request their officials returned back all his original certificates. The officials of the opposite parties also asked the complainant to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.1000/- but he did not deposit the same hence he is not liable to get refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- as such there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The undisputed facts of the parties are that the complainant has taken the admission in B.Tech (Mechanical) in the the opposite parties university and deposited the amount of Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.3513 dated 23.7.2012 for the session 2012-13.
6. The disputed facts between the parties are that as the complainant does not want to pursue his study, he applied for the refund of the fees of Rs.20,000/- alongwith his original documents and wrote an application dated 25.7.2012 and thereafter his father wrote an application on 17.8.2012 to this effect and also sent a legal notice dated 12.10.2012 for the refund of the fees and to return the original certificates but to no avail. The opposite parties have not refunded the fee of the complainant on the ground that he was liable to deposit the fee of Rs.21,000/- i.e. Rs.10,500/- each month but he has deposited only Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1000/- is still lying due against him and has denied the applications dated 25.7.2012 and 17.8.2012. The complainant is not liable to get the refund of Rs.20,000/- as he has attended the classes for 2 months and has already paid less fees.
7. The complainant has given the reference of the notification issued by the Punjab Government vide notification Nos.13/48/09-ITE2/1508 dated 4.5.2009 (MET-2009) and 13/48/09 ITE2/1502 dated 4.5.2009 (PAM-CAT 2009) regarding the refund of the amount to the students.
On the other hand the opposite parties have given the reference of Rule No.(ii) of the refund of fees in para No.2 of their reply on merits wherein it has been mentioned that 'in case, a student/candidate withdraws on or after the date of commencement of the course and before the last date of admission, proportionate deduction of semester fee shall be made. The deduction shall be one fourth of the entire semester fee (excluding refundable securities) per month or part thereof, subject to a minimum amount of Rs.1000/- refundable securities shall be returned in full'. The original certificates have already been returned to the complainant.
8. A perusal of Ex.C1, an application dated 25.7.2012 does not show that the same has been ever sent to the opposite parties and ever received by the opposite parties. The complainant has paid Rs.20,000/- on 23.7.2012 and the original certificates have already been returned to him. The complainant has sought admission in B.Tech (Mechanical) in 3rd semester and has received the documents in original on 12.9.2012. The University Regd No.008515308974 is issued to the complainant and the seat surrendered by the complainant remained vacant and was not allotted to any other person. The amount of Rs.10,500/- was paid for each month, he has attended the classes for 2 months as such he is required to deposit Rs.21,000/- but the total amount was paid by him Rs.20,000/- only as such Rs.1000/- is not paid by him yet. The last date of admission was expired on July 2012 and the classes started on 1.8.2012 and as such as per the prospectus the complainant is not entitled to any refund because the last date of academic session has already expired. The opposite parties have placed on file the copy of attendance register in which the Roll No. of the complainant is shown at serial No.54 and he has been marked absent.
9. The opposite parties have taken the legal objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and has given the reference of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, Civil Appeal No.6807 of 2008 decided on July 19, 2010, in this the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has given the reference of the case titled Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that all the functions that has been performed by the University or Board are as autonomous body, statutory in nature i.e. regarding the issuance of the degree, roll no. and revaluation etc. but in the present case the matter is regarding the refund of fees and the complainant alleged that he has not attended any class in the opposite parties institution. Thus with utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the counsel of the opposite parties, have distinguishable facts and circumstances hence this Fora has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complainant has taken the admission in 3rd semester it is clearly mentioned in the prospectus Ex.C3 on page No.38 of Refund of Fees in Rule Nos.(ii) and (iii):-
“(ii) In case a student/candidate withdraws on or after the date of commencement of the course and before the last date of admission, proportionate deduction of semester fee shall be made. The deduction shall be one fourth of the entire semester fee (excluding refundable securities) per month or part thereof, subject to a minimum amount of Rs.1000/- refundable securities shall be returned in full.
(iii) The rules (I) to (iii) above shall apply for refund of fees of first semester only. For second and subsequent semesters of a course, only the refundable security amount shall be returned, and other fees once paid shall not be returned.”
Thus as per the abovesaid rules only the refundable security amount shall be returned to the complainant but in the present case the refundable security is not refunded to the complainant. Moreover the version of the opposite parties is wrong that the fee of one month is Rs.10,500/- and the complainant has attended the classes for 2 months and he has to pay Rs.21,000/- whereas in receipt nothing is mentioned that this was the tuition fee rather it clearly shows that it is the registration slip of the amount of Rs.20,000/- which has been paid towards the admission fee hence the refundable security as mentioned in the prospectus of session 2012-13 be refunded to the complainant. The opposite parties have also failed to prove that if the student was absent since the very date of the commencement of the classes why his name has not been struck off from the rolls of the institute or he was sent any letter/notice for asking about the reason for not attending the classes. Moreover opposite parties have failed to place any rules on the file to show that for how long the student can remain absent and he be treated on rolls.
10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the refundable security amount to the complainant as per their rules and regulations mentioned in the prospectus of year 2012-13.
11. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
12. In case of non-compliance the refundable security amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record.
Pronounced (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
23-04-2013 President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
