DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.164/2013

Shri Dhiraj Singh

S/o Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Singh Traders, Opp. Bus Stand,

Jalda ‘C’ Block, Rourkela,

Odisha-769043.                                                   ….Complainant

Versus

The Dean I.I.P.M. College,

Satbari, Chandan Haula Chhatarpur Road,

New Delhi..                                                ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      : 05.04.13             Date of Order                : 03.04.18

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

As per the case of the complainant, he took admission in BBA + MBA programme of the OP for the year 2012-13 and deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- refundable on 03.01.2012 in account No.31132787632 in State Bank of India Branch in the name of I.I.P.M. Private Ltd. Thereafter, he came to know that the programme was not of his choice but the same was different one. Therefore, he immediately told the OP that he was not willing to join the said course and OP assured the complainant that fee will be refunded to him. However, the OP did not refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- to him and thus breached their promises which amounts to  deficiency in service on the part of the OP. According to the complainant, he did not avail the service of the OP even for a single day and he had clearly told the OP within the period of 7 days that he was not in a position to take admission in such a programme which was not suitable to the complainant. Hence, it is prayed that the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @18% per annum and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, tension and harassment and unfair trade practice.

In the written statement, the OP has inter-alia stated that imparting of education by the OP institute is not “service” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and, hence, no deficiency in service. It is stated that the complainant was fully aware as regards the nature of the course and the degree to be awarded; that being completely and aware full knowledge the complainant had enrolled in the said programme; that ‘even though the institute for not joining the course as it is mentioned to them clearly in the selection letter itself that the retention fees is not refundable’. According to the OP, OP has never sought recognition from any statutory body and is proud of its world class course contents and the value of the I.I.P.M. certificate lies in the excellent course content and also placement that I.I.P.M. students get year after year and the number of students who put their faith in the I.I.P.M. programme every year. It is clearly mentioned in the selection letter after pre admission examination that the retention fee is not refundable but still the complainant deposited the same just to block his seat and when he got admission in another college he cooked up a fake story. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

In replication, the complainant has inter-alia stated that when the student for his better future can get better opportunity for his education why he should not avail that opportunity and nobody can stop him from doing so. It is stated that the person or institution cannot retain any amount without providing the service in lieu of that account.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Shri Varun Verma, Assistant Manager (Legal Affairs) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

We have heard the oral arguments of the complainant in person. No oral arguments have been advanced on behalf of the OP despite opportunity given in this behalf. We have gone through the file very carefully.

Complainant has filed the copy of provisional receipt dated 03.01.2012 by which he had deposited Rs.25,000/- with the OP. We mark it as Mark-A for the purposes of identification. Except this, no other relevant documents with regard to the case have been filed on behalf of the parties. However, the case of the OP is that the complainant had deposited Rs.25,000/- towards retention fee with clear stipulation that the retention fee was not refundable; that when the complainant got admission in another college he applied for refund of the fee after cooking up a false story that the programme offered by the OP was not suitable for him. The onus was upon the complainant to prove as to how the programme offered by the OP and towards which he had deposited Rs.25,000/- as retention fee was not suitable for him. It is very clear that after deposit of retention fee amount of Rs.25,000/- to the OP complainant had infact got admission in some another institute or college and only then he applied for refund of retention fee with the OP. It is true that nobody can stop any person (for that purpose the complainant) from taking admission in any institute of his own choice and no institute can force him to pursue study in its institution. However, once retention fee was non refundable inasmuch as the complainant had blocked one seat by depositing the retention fee, the complainant is not entitled to say that since he had not availed the service of the OP at any stage, the amount was refundable to him. Therefore, balance of convenience is in favour of the OP and in our considered opinion OP is not guilty of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 03.04.18.