DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 236 of 16-08-2007<br /> Decided on : 21-11-2007<br /> <br /> Preeti D/o Sh. Mohan Lal aged about 22 years, R/o H. No. 750/A, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, through its Coordinator /Incharge Coordinator/Director.<br /> 2. SSD Women's Inst. Of Tech. Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, through its Principal.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Opposite party No. 1 exparte<br /> Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, authorised representative on behalf of opposite party No. 2.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') through which complainant seeks direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to give her admission in MCA in opposite party No. 2 or in the alternative refund Rs. 10,000/- received as part payment on account of admission fee and Rs.550/- as cost of prospectus alongwith interest @18% P.A. from the date of deposit till realisation; pay Rs. 5,000/- spent by her for tuition and misc. expenses etc.; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony, loss of physical health and loss of previous one year and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant may be stated as under :<br /> Advertisement was given by opposite party No. 1 through various sources for admission in numerous courses including MCA. Complainant wanted to do MCA (three years course). Form was filled in by her for entrance test after purchasing prospectus/Form for a sum of Rs. 550/- at Bathinda. Form was submitted at Regional Centre, Bathinda, an authorised centre for deposit of Forms with fee of Rs.1,000/- in the shape of draft. Admit Card was issued to her to take the entrance test under Roll No. 31421. Entrance test was conducted by opposite party No. 1. She had appeared and qualified it. Her rank was 2002. Counselling was done by opposite party No. 1. She joined the counselling to get admission in MCA. She was apprised that as per her rank, she has four options to choose centre for admission including Bathinda and Jallandhar. As she is resident of Bathinda, she chose Bathinda centre i.e. opposite party No. 2 for admission. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by her at the time of counselling i.e. on 26.7.07. Provisional Seat Allotment Slip dated 26.7.07 was issued to her by opposite party No. 1 with further direction to approach opposite party No. 2 for getting admission and for depositing remaining amount with opposite party No. 2 at Bathinda. She alleges that it was made clear by her to opposite party No. 1 at the time of counselling that she would deposit the amount only in case she would be allotted seat/admission at Bathinda. Accordingly, amount was deposited by her only after confirmation by opposite party No. 1 regarding Bathinda centre. Thereafter she approached opposite party No. 2 and submitted her application for admission alongwith requisite documents i.e. Provisional Seat Allotment Slip etc., Opposite party No. 2 conveyed her that she is not eligible to get admission in opposite party No. 2 as she has secured marks less than 50% in graduation. Note to this effect was given by opposite party No. 2 on the application itself on 30.7.07. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 was approached which apprised her to choose Jallandhar centre for admission to which she did not agree. When she asked for refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, she was told that the same is not permissible. Act and conduct of the opposite parties have caused her mental tension and agony. Her one year of life has been wasted.<br /> 3. Registered A.D. Post notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party No. 1 on 27.8.07. Till 4.10.07 neither registered cover nor A.D. was received back. Accordingly, opposite party No. 1 was deemed to have been duly served. No-one came on its behalf. Hence, it has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 2 filed reply of the complaint stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part. Complainant is not its consumer as even a single penny has not been paid to it by her. It is bound to follow strictly the eligibility conditions for admission laid down by the university. It is affiliated with Punjabi University, Patiala. Complainant is not eligible for admission under the rules of University. As per eligibility condition of this university for admission in MCA class the candidate must have passed the Bachelor's degree with 50% marks in aggregate). (Prospectus for PAT-CAT-2007 Page No. 18) 45% marks for SC/ST and physically handicapped with at least 40% disability. Complainant had applied under General category which has been clearly mentioned in the provisional seat allotment slip issued by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. Provisional seat allotment slip clearly mentions that this seat allotment is subject to verification of eligibility by the respective Institution. No representative of the college is allowed to be present in the venue of counselling at the time of seat allotment. Complainant had approached it alongwith provisional allotment slip and her certificates etc. They were checked for eligibility and admission purposes as per norms of the university. She had secured less than 50% marks. Hence admission could not be given to her. Prospectus was not purchased by her from it. This Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.<br /> 5. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Date Sheet MET 2007 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of admit card (Ex. C-3), photocopy of provisional seat allotment slip (Ex. C-4), photocopy of receipt No. 14332 dated 26.7.07 (Ex. C-5) and photocopy of application dated 30.7.07 (Ex. C-6).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 2 copy of notification dated 26.4.07 (Ex. R-1), copy of page No. 18 of Prospectus (Ex. R-2), photocopy of provisional seat allotment slip (Ex. R-3), photocopy of application dated 30.7.07 (Ex. R-4) and photocopy of receipt No. 14332 dated 26.7.07 (Ex. R-5) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, authorised representative on behalf of opposite party No. 2 at length. Besides, this we have also gone through the record.<br /> 8. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant has reiterated her version in the complaint in her affidavit Ex. C-1. She had appeared in the entrance test for MCA (three years course) conducted by opposite party No. 1 and qualified it. Admit card was issued to her as is clear from Ex. C-3. Since test was cleared by her, provisional seat allotment slip copy of which is Ex. C-4 was issued to her by opposite party No. 1. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by her on 26.7.07 as is evident from copy of receipt Ex. C-5. Despite this, complainant has not been admitted in opposite party No. 2. He further argued that in these circumstances, complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for.<br /> 9. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, authorised representative of opposite party No. 2 argued that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2 is proved.<br /> 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.<br /> 11. Admittedly Prospectus for entrance test was purchased by the complainant against payment of Rs. 550/-. This document is the magma carta. Copy of its page No. 18 is Ex. R-2. It is not the case of the complainant that she did not purchase the prospectus and go through its contents. She filled in the Form for entrance test after purchasing it (prospectus). Eligibility criteria as per Ex. R-2 given in the prospectus is as under :-<br /> “For MCA - Candidate who have passed the Bachelor's degree (10+2+3)/BCA in any discipline of the statutory University with 50% marks in aggregate (45% marks for SC/ST and physically handicapped with at least 40% disability). The candidates must have passed the senior secondary (10+2) or equivalent examination or higher degree examination with Mathematics/Statistics/Business Mathematics/Business Statistics/Quantitative Techniques or equivalent as compulsory/optional/additional subject or paper.<br /> 12. Opposite party does not deny the fact that complainant applied under general category for which candidate is required to have passed Bachelor's degree with 50% marks in aggregate. Complainant has failed to show that she has scored not less than 50% marks in aggregate in graduation. Complainant had voluntarily taken the entrance test and had appeared in it. Performance of statutory duty by the university or college in laying down criteria/rules/regulations for conducting examinations, eligibility criteria for permitting the students for appearing in the examination or declaration of result of a student who appeared in the examination and such other activities cannot be considered to be hiring of service for fee. These are statutory functions not depending upon the contract between the parties. University in laying the criteria/rules/regulations for conducting the examination, eligibility criteria for permitting the students for appearing in the examination was not rendering any service to the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 issued Prospectus laying down the criteria for initial deposit and other fee in its para No. 15.2 which is reproduced as under :-<br /> “15.2 Initial Deposit and other Fees<br /> d) The initial amount of Rs. 10,000/- onces deposited shall not be refunded.”<br /> According to it, initial amount of Rs. 10,000/- once deposited shall not be refunded. Accordingly, initial amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the complainant is not refundable particularly when opposite party No. 1 was not rendering any service to the complainant in laying down criteria/rules/regulations for conducting entrance test and eligibility criteria for students who appeared in it. So far as the issuance of provisional seat allotment slip by opposite party No. 1 is concerned, it has been made clear in it that seat allotment is subject to verification of eligibility by respective Institution. Accordingly, opposite party No. 2 has not allowed her admission on the ground that she has scored less than 50% marks in aggregate in Bachelor's Degree. It is worth mentioning that no service has been rendered to her by opposite party No. 2.<br /> 13. In the premises written above, no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is proved. Hence complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 21-11--2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br />