DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:84 of 2012] Date of Institution : 10.02.2012 Date of Decision :01.05.2012 Sh. Daljit Singh son of Late Sh. Ram Singh resident of House No.203, Advocates Enclave, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. VERSUS Helix Institute, SCO No.343-345, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Director/Manager Sh. M. L. Sayal. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Daljit Singh, Complainant in person. OP exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Daljit Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on behalf of her daughter Ms. Gursimran Kaur (minor), praying therein that OP be directed to:- i) Refund a sum of Rs.5,000/- paid as fee along with interest @12% per annum. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Pay costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that her daughter namely Ms. Gursimran Kaur cleared the screening test conducted by OP Institute and she was selected for 2 Years Course for Medical Entrance Exams-2013(HMC-6). The complainant deposited fee of Rs.5,000/- vide receipt No.5847 dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure C-3). It is averred by the complainant that as his daughter Ms. Gursimran Kaur was interested in Non Medical Stream, he requested the OP Institute to refund the fee of Rs.5,000/- vide application dated 27.05.2011 (Annexure C-4). It is averred that Ms. Gursimran Kaur did not attend any class and applied for refund of fee before starting of the classes. However on 07.06.2011, the OP Institute refused to make the refund. According to the complainant, non refund of the fee by the OP Institute amounts to unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OP was duly served through Process Server. Since none appeared on behalf OP Institute despite service, therefore, OP was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.04.2012. 4. We have heard the complainant in person and perused the record very carefully. 5. The averments made in the complaint as reproduced above of the order stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant as well as from documents annexed with the complaint. Annexure C-3, which is receipt dated 04.03.2011 clearly proves that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with the OP towards the fee for 2 Years Course for Medical Entrance Exams – 2012 (HMC-6). Annexure C-4 is the letter dated 27.05.2011 vide which the complainant requested the OP Institute for refunding the fee as she was interested in Non Medical Stream and did not want to pursue the Medical Stream. Thus, in our view, once the complainant had given in writing to the OP Institute expressing the interest of her daughter in some other stream and sought refund of the fee paid for Medical Stream and that too well before the starting of the classes, the complainant was entitled for the refund of the fee deposited with the OP Institute. 6. In the case titled FIIT JEE (Hyderabad Classes) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Rohit Binjrajka, II (2010) CPJ 45, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad has held in Para 8 as under:- “8. In the earlier decisions, it was held that the institute need not refund the amount paid towards course fee in case the student withdraws from the institution or discontinue in the middle of the course. But, in the recent decision of the National Commission on the basis of the UGC guidelines it was held that the Ministry of Human Resources Development and UGC have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and universities in the public interest shall maintain the waiting list of students/candidates and in the event of any student admitted withdraws before the starting of the course the waited listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- shall be refunded and returned by the institution/University to the student or candidate who had withdrawn from the course. In view of the guidelines, it was held that the institution/University is bound to refund the fee that was paid for the entire course. The said guidelines also applied to the OP’s institution.” 7. In the present case, it is proved on record that the daughter of the complainant did not attend the class and left the course before its commencement. As such, the seat vacated by the complainant could have been filled from the waiting list maintained by the OP Institute. Accordingly, in the light of the above cited case, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the fee deposited with the OP after deduction of minimum of Rs.1,000/- as processing fee. In our considered view, non-refund of the fee by the OP Institute amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on its part. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the OP is directed as under: - (i) To refund a sum of Rs.4,000/- i.e. [Rs.5,000 – Rs.1,000] to the complainant, paid as fee to the OP Institute. (ii) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment. (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation 9. This order be complied with by OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.9,000/- i.e. [Rs.4,000 + Rs.5,000] along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of complainant making application for refund i.e. 27.05.2011 till its realization besides payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 1st May 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO..84 OF 2012 Argued By: Sh. Daljit Singh, Complainant in person. OP exparte. --- Dated the 1st day of May 2012. ORDER As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 01.05.2012 MEMBNER PRESIDENT MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
