:    J U D G M E N T    :

The brief fact of the case is that the complainant applied for entrance examination in this institution of OP in order to have admission in engineering course.  The OP institution took the admission fee of Rs. 57,500/- on 08.08.12 and issued a receipt to the complainant.  The complainant was allowed to continue regular classes and after expiry of some months, the OP informed that the complainant was not able to continue the said course as the permission was not granted from the authority concern.  Thereafter, the complainant has lost the chance to complete the said course.  So the complainant requested to refund the amount of admission fee but OP denied to pay it to the complainant.   There is a fault and deficiency in service on the part of OP.   Hence, the complainant has knocked at the door of the Forum along with number of prayers mentioned in the relevant portion of the complainant. 

The OP contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia that the complainant took admission in civil engineering course (1^st year) on 08.08.12.  But he has passed diploma in computer science engineering.  It is further stated that as per order No. 314-Edn(T)/4E 10/12 dtd. 31.07.12 of Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal, diploma engineers are eligible to take admission in 4^th year B-Tech Course.  After starting the session he remained absent and he has failed to fulfill 75% attendance criteria which is mandatory to appear in semester examination as per WBUT Regulation.  Several times, OP College called him over telephone to appear and to fill up university registration form where his signature was needed but he has failed to attend the college.  Subsequently, on 17.10.12 his mother wrote a letter to the OP College for cancellation of his admission stating that the complainant namely Prosenjit Saha has got a job and he was not interested to continue the said course.   It is not possible to refund the admission fee to the complainant as the college will suffer huge loss of Rs. 2,70,500/-.   So the petition is liable to be rejected.  

Now this Forum is to consider the following points:-

Point No. 1:   Whether the complainant is to be treated as a consumer or not as per

      provision of Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Point No.2:      Whether there is any gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part

      of OP or not.

Point No. 3:     Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for or not.

DECISION WITH REASONS

The record gives indication that the complainant in substantiating his claim submitted certain documents and OP also submitted number of documents for supporting their case. We have perused all documents along with complaint, written version , brief notes of arguments etc .  It has become settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission that whenever a person approaches the jurisdiction of a Forum for the purpose of having any relief ,  he/she is under obligation to prove himself/herself  to be a consumer.  In the instant case the complainant paid the consideration amount of Rs. 57,500/- on 08.08.12 in office of OP for the purpose of doing the engineering course and in this respect the office of OP issued a money receipt.  The OP received the consideration amount from the complainant for the purpose of admission fee.   In instant case OP is to be treated as a service provider as per C. P.  Act 1986.  Be it mentioned, that the Board/ University does not come within the purview of C P Act 1986.   But this OP comes within the purview of the C. P. Act 1986 as this institution is a private educational institution.  So under the above facts and circumstances and the status between the complainant and OP, the complainant is to be treated as a consumer as per provision of C P Act 1986.

It is fact that the complainant paid the consideration amount of Rs. 57,500/-                 for the purpose of admission fee in engineering course and the OP received the same from the complainant as well as issued a money receipt in this respect.   At this stage, it should be decided at first who is actually negligent in the said case as the complainant’s mother wrote a letter addressed to the OP concerned stating, inter alia, that her son viz, Prosenjit Saha,  was not able to attend the class because her son has got a job.  She also prayed for return of consideration amount from the OP concerned for the aforementioned ground. In the instant case the complainant has admitted the letter written by his mother. The complainant did not challenge the same.  So the said letter remains unchallenged from the end of complainant.   From this situation it is proved that for his personal urgency or need (i.e. for getting job) the complainant is not interested to attend the class. In Ramdeobaba Vs. Sushant Yuvraj (1995) 1 JCR 111 (NC) it was held that non-refund of admission fees where student voluntarily withdrawn from institution is not deficiency in service.  This is a case where has been deficiency of service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering College.  The respondent complainant, Shrirode withdrew from the college to join another institute voluntarily and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering College.   Non refund of admission fees, is not deficiency is service.   Admission fee  is a consideration for admission and the service with the Engineering College was to render to the student in the matter of his pursuing studies in the college after admission.   It is a quid pro quo for such service.  In the instant case the op educational institution is interested to render the service to the complainant but if the complainant remains absent day to day, in the said situation, how the complainant avails or hires the service from the OP.  So it is the negligence on the part of the complainant.

Therefore, on the basis of aforementioned observations we come to conclusion that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP / Educational Institution.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief.  All the points mentioned above are hereby decided on the basis of above observations.  So the case fails.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the case CC/2014/127 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

Let the copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.