BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 92

Date of Institution : 6.4.2010

Date of Decision : 21.10.2010

Mehtab Kaur aged about 23 years d/o Sh. Nettar Singh r/o House No. B-8/55, Sandhu Street Near Power House, Muktsar Road, Kotkapura District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

1. Guru Nanak Dev Dental College, Sunam through its Principal/Director.

2. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot through its Vice Chancellor.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. P. Betab counsel for the complainant.

Sh. G.S. Sandhu counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

Sh. R.P. Goyal counsel for opposite party No. 2.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for not refunding Rs. 2,30,000/- as fee for second year session of BDS course, Rs. 60,000/- as hostel charges for the second year, Rs. 60,000/- as security amount which is refundable and for not returning original certificates of the complainant and to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and loss of carrier besides costs of the complaint of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she took admission in BDS course in 2007 in Guru Nanak Dev Dental College, Sunam opposite party No. 1 which is affiliated to opposite party No. 2 after clearing the entrance test held by the opposite party No. 2. At the time of taking admission the complainant submitted her original certificates, paid Rs. 2,30,000/- as tuition fee for the first year vide receipt dated 21.9.2007 and Rs. 60,000/- as security which is refundable and Rs. 60,000/- as hostel charges. Apart from this the opposite party No. 1 compelled the father of the complainant to hand over two blank cheques which the father of complainant had to submit as the opposite party No. 1 declined to admit her without fulfilling this condition. Again in second year she deposited Rs. 2,30,000/- as tuition fee for second year vide receipt dated 31.10.2008 and also paid Rs. 60,000/- as hostel charges but complainant could not continue her studies for the second year as Dr. Monika Singh the lecturer of Biochemistry was harassing the complainant by forcing her to do such works which do not behove a student to do and when the complainant refused to do so Monika Singh deliberately gave less assessment marks to the complainant. Moreover, the complainant had failed in two subjects due to inimical attitude of above named Monika Singh. Even the examination form of the complainant for supplementary exams to be held in November, 2009 were not sent to opposite party No. 2 by the opposite party No. 1 as the complainant refused to pay the fee for third year. Due to these reasons the complainant had to discontinue her studies and to leave the college of the opposite party No. 1. As the complainant did not attend the classes for second year nor resided in the hostel during the second year so she is entitled for refund of second year fee of Rs. 2,30,000/-, hostel charges of Rs. 60,000/- for the second session besides other expenses got deposited by the opposite parties for second year and security amount of Rs. 60,000/- which is refundable and original certificates kept by the opposite parties at the time of admission. The complainant requested the opposite parties many times to refund the above mentioned amounts and return the original certificates but each time the opposite parties put off the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 11.12.2009 to the opposite parties but the opposite party No. 1 started demanding fee for the third year also, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant was also astonished when she received a notice from the counsel of opposite party No. 1 in which it has been alleged that the college authorities had presented a cheque of Rs. 2,30,000/- alleged to have been given by the father of the complainant which has been dishonoured. From this notice it seems that the opposite party No. 1 has filled up one of the blank cheques and after forging the signatures of the father of the complainant presented the same for encashment which is sheer forgery, fraud and cheating on the part of the opposite party No. 1, which is also trade mal practice on their part. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 7.4.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite party No. 1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint as she herself left the institute at her own whereas it was categorically mentioned in the prospectus for BDS course at page 10 that “All the students admitted against State quota/Management Quota/NRI Quota will have to furnish a bond/Bank Guarantee that they will be liable to pay the balance fee for the whole course even if they leave the institute/course midway. It is further alleged that the complex question of law and facts are involved in this complaint which require thorough investigation and recording of evidence at length so the matter is liable to be referred to the Civil Court. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant took admission in BDS course in 2007 in opposite party No. 1 college and deposited the required amounts with them but it is wrong that the answering opposite party No. 1 ever compelled the father of the complainant to hand over the blank cheques, rather as per rules and regulations of the University as well as college that the students of special quotas as mentioned above will be liable to pay the balance fee for whole of the course even if they leave the institute midway as per prospectus PMET-2007 but the father of the complainant showed their inability to furnish any bond or bank guarantee and they requested to issue two post dated cheques to pay the balance fee of BDS course and opposite party No. 1 in good faith accepted the cheques. It is admitted that the complainant deposited the tuition fee and other charges but it is wrong that the complainant could not continue her studies for the second year due to Dr. Monika Singh. It is denied that the complainant ever handed over the examination form for sending the same to the University Authorities. The opposite party No. 1 sent two notices to the complainant for the deposit of the examination fee but to no effect and she has miserably failed to deposit the examination fee. As the complainant is legally bound to pay the fee for the whole of course of BDS, though she left the institute/college in midway course, so nothing was refundable to the complainant. It is admitted that legal notice was served under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and a complaint against the complainant and her father is pending before the Court at Sunam. The opposite party No. 1 never forged the signatures of the father of the complainant, rather the father of the complainant gave two post dated cheques duly signed to the opposite party No. 1. It is also admitted that the original certificates submitted by the complainant which are returnable after completion of course. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. The opposite party No. 2 also filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the system of education and the present controversy does not fall under the definition of consumer. No proceedings of the present complaint took place at Faridkot, so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was admitted under Management Quota in General Category at Guru Nanak Dev Dental College, Sunam through counseling held at college level at Sunam on 21.9.2007. The answering opposite party neither has security nor original certificates of the complainant. These are all kept at college level, so the answering opposite party has no liability towards the complainant. As per instructions regarding payment of fee as per PMET-07 prospectus, the fee will be payable on annual basis and the institutions shall not insist on the candidate to deposit fee of the entire course in advance. At the most candidates can be asked to furnish a bond/bank guarantee that they will be liable to pay the balance fee for the whole course even if they leave the institute/course midway. The complainant never reported any trade mal practice to the answering opposite party. The opposite party No. 2 only has been made a party in this complaint to file the complaint at Faridkot. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

6. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt dated 21.9.2007 Ex.C-2, copy of receipts dated 2.7.2008 Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copy of receipt dated 31.10.2008 Ex.C-5, copy of admission slip Ex.C-6, copy of legal notice Ex.C-7, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and closed her evidence.

7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of D.S. Sidhu Registrar Ex.R-1, Ratan Lal Jain Principal Ex.R-2, copy of account statement of Mehtab Kaur Ex.R-3, copy of prospectus for BDS Ex.R-4, prospectus for PMET for 2007-08 Ex.R-5 and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file.

9. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that the opposite party No. 1 has illegally withheld Rs. 2,30,000/-, fee deposited by the complainant for second year session of BDS course, Rs. 60,000/- as hostel charges for the said year and Rs. 60,000/- as security amount which is otherwise refundable besides original certificates of the complainant. He has contended that the complainant could not pursue her studies for the second year BDS course due to compelling circumstances. She had to leave institute of opposite party No. 1 and did not attend classes for the said year. As per the learned counsel for the complainant by non refunding of aforesaid fee and other charges opposite party No. 1 has indulged in unfair trade practice. So, a direction has been sought to the opposite party No. 1 for the refund of annual fee as well as other charges as referred to above.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter in question as no cause of action or a part thereof took place at Faridkot nor any branch of opposite party No. 1 is functioning at Faridkot. The complainant was admitted under Management Quota in General Category at Guru Nanak Dev Dental College, Sunam through counseling held at college level. Opposite party No. 2 has neither security nor original certificates of the complainant with it. These are kept at college level. Fee and other charges too have been realized by the opposite party No. 1 and as such complaint before this Forum is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.

11. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The opposite party No. 2 has taken a specific stand by way of para No. 1 of the written reply stating that the complainant was admitted in Management Quota in General Category in Guru Nanak Dev Dental College, Sunam through counseling held at college level at Sunam on 21.9.2007. As per fee slip dated 21.9.2007 Ex.C-2 annual tuition fee to the tune of Rs. 2,30,000/- was deposited by the complainant in Guru Nanak Dev Dental College and Research Centre, Sunam. Similar is the position as regards hostel charges and other charges as witnessed by relevant receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5. As per provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:

a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. Or

b) any of the opposite parties where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution Or

c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.

From the pleadings and the evidence led by the complainant side Guru Nanak Dev Dental College and Institution, Sunam has no branch at Faridkot. Cause of action wholly or in part never arose at Faridkot. Mere fact that general examination of selection was conducted by opposite party No. 2 would not confer jurisdiction on the Forum to entertain the instant complaint at Faridkot.

12. In view of our above observations and findings, we are of the considered opinion that since this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint filed by Mehtab Kaur, therefore, her complaint is simply unmaintainable and as such the same is dismissed. Complainant is at liberty to have recourse to the Forum within whose territorial jurisdiction this complaint may lie. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 21.10.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)