BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.210/13.
Date of instt.: 26.09.2013.
Date of Decision: 05.05.2015.
Vishal Verma (minor) S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar through his next friend his father Krishan Kumar r/o Village Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Haryana College of Technology and Management, Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its Principal.
2. Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Devender Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Anurag Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Op No.2 already given-up.
ORDER
(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he applied for the B.Tech Courses (EEE) for the year 2013 in the college of Op No.1 and as per the directions of Op No.1, the complainant deposited Rs.35,200/- with the Op No.1 vide receipt dt. 31.07.2013. It is alleged that due to some unavoidable circumstances, the parents of the complainant intimated to the Ops in their college that the complainant could not continue the admission and wants to refund their amount. It is further alleged that on 29.08.2013, the Op No.1 called the complainant in the college and requested to file an application in written to the Op No.1 to cancel the admission and told him to come again after 15-20 days to receive the amount back. It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops several times but the Ops did not refund the amount and also misbehaved with the complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum. Op No.2 was given-up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide separate statement recorded on 31.03.2014. Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; estoppel; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is stated that the academic session started in the month of July, 2013. It is absolutely wrong to allege that due to any unavoidable circumstance in the family of complainant, the parents of complainant intimated to the Op No.1 for discontinuation of admission. In fact the complainant himself could not bear the pressure of the course as he was not good at studies. Therefore, he moved an application dt. 29.08.2013 to Op No.1 for cancellation of his admission. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. The ld. Counsel of complainant contended that the complainant has applied for the B.Tech. Courses (EEE), HCTM, Kaithal for the year 2013 in the college of respondent No.1. The complainant deposited Rs.35,200/- with the respondent No.1 vide receipt dt. 31.07.2013 (Ex.C1) which was issued by the respondent No.1. But due to unavoidable circumstances in his family, the parents of the complainant intimated the respondent No.1 in their college that the complainant could not continue the study and wants to refund their amount on which the respondent No.1 gave the assurance to the complainant and his parents to refund the appropriate amount after adjusting the vacant seat. The respondent No.1 contended that the academic session started in the month of July, 2013 but Key Dates (B.E./B.Tech)-2013 shows that the final cut off dates for all admission and online updation was 15.08.2013 (Ex.R4).
6. The respondent No.1 contended that the complainant left the course midway and due to this said act, the seat occupied by him was left vacant and could not filled-up. But the respondent No.1 has not produced any evidence to show the seat vacant thereby causing loss to the respondent. In this context, we can rely upon the authority reported as G.G.S.Indraprastha University Vs. Vaibhav, 2009(4) CPJ page 234 (NC), wherein it has been held that Admission-fee refund-Petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the seat vacated by the respondent/complainant remained vacant thereby causing loss to the petitioner-Order of the fora below directing refund of fee upheld.
6. The respondent No.1 also contended that at the time of admission, the complainant along with his father Krishan Kumar executed their respective undertaking that in case the complainant withdraw his admission under any circumstances at any stage of the course, his entire fee shall be forfeited and thereafter he shall have no claim against the College. We can rely upon the authority in this regard reported as Savavpreet Singh Vs. Lata Lajpat Rai Institute of Engineering & Technology, Moga & others, 2010(4) CPJ page 318 (NC), wherein it has been held that Admission-Fees refund-On getting admission in another institution on the basis of special Counseling-The Rules and regulations issued by the All India Council for Technical Education are fully applicable to the institutions imparting technical education as in the present case which provided for fees refund-In view of the clear guidelines of All India Council for Technical Education applicable to both respondents No.1 and 2 Institutions, they cannot be allowed to take plea of their advertisement and condition contained therein to deny refund of fees and other charges to the petitioner/complainant-Impugned order passed by the State Commission set-aside and the respondent No.1-Institute accordingly directed to refund the entire amount of fees deposited by the complainant with it at the time of taking admission along with Rs.7500/- which was received by the Institute from respondent No.1 University-However, respondent No.1-Institute shall be free of deduct a processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- while refunding the amount of fees after deducting processing fee upon Rs.1,000/-. In the authority reported as Andhra University & others Vs. Janjanam Jagedeesh, 2010(3) CPJ page 310 (NC), it has been held that Admission-Fee refund-The respondent/complainant within a week of depositing the fees and the certificates had requested for being withdrawn from the course without attending any class-In view of the UGC guidelines, the petitioner/Ops were unfair in retaining the entire fee, even after the student withdrew from their College-Petitioner have failed to prove that the resultant vacancy was not filled up by any other candidate from the waiting list-Petitioner/Ops directed to retain only Rs.1,000/- of the fee deposit by the respondent/complainant and refund the balance amount with 6% interest p.a. Reliance can also be made upon the authority reported as Indian Institute of Hotel Management & others Vs. Reshmi Dutta, 2011(3) CLT page 599 (NC), wherein it has been held that Admission-Fee refund-The respondent had not joined the Institute even for a single day-It can be safely presumed that the Institute would have filled up the resultant vacancy, entailing no financial loss whatsoever-Plea on behalf of the petitioner that there is clause that once fee is paid the same is not liable to be refunded repelled and held that this type of one-sided conditions have been overruled by a number of Fora, including UGC and Ministry of Human Resources Development-State Commission has not committed any illegality, material irregularity or exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the petitioner/Institute to refund the fee after deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/- which is just, proper and reasonable. The said authorities are fully applicable to the present case. So, in view of said authorities, the Op No.1-Institute shall be free to deduct a processing fee for not more than Rs.1,000/- while refunding the amount of entire fee.
7. The ld. Counsel for Op No.2 contends that this Forum has no jurisdiction in the matter as the complainant is not a consumer, as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 qua the answering Op. Further, the answering respondent is not providing any service as defined in Section 2(o) of the aforesaid Act and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent. The University is a statutory authority and is discharging statutory functions and is not a service-provider and consequently, complaint under the Act is not maintainable against the answering respondent. So, the complainant withdrew his complaint against Op No.2 at later stage vide separate statement recorded on 31.03.2014. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Op No.1 is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint qua Op No.1 and direct the Institute-respondent No.1 to refund Rs.34,200/- after deducting processing fee of Rs.1,000/- along with original certificate and further to pay Rs.2,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Let the order be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.05.05.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
