DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.265/2013

Ms. Shivani Aggarwal

D/o Shyam Sunder Aggarwal,

R/o A-145/73, Gali No.1,

Krishna Puri,  Mandawali,

Delhi-110092                                                                   ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Arindam Chaudhary

          Director

          Indian Institute of Planning and Management

B-11, 4^th Level, Qutab Institutional Area,

New Delhi

2.       Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Through its Director/

B-11, 4^th Level, Qutab Institutional Area,

New Delhi                                                          ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution  : 30.04.13            Date of Order        : 30.04.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

1. Succinctly put, the complainant Shivani Aggarwal sought admission in PG(C) course with Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) hereinafter referred to as OP, on 18.12.10. The complainant paid retention fee of Rs.40,250/-  on 12.01.11. Copy of the receipt is placed on record as Annexure-B. The complainant being needy was assured that education loan of Rs.4 lakhs will be sanctioned in her favour as the OP had the facility to provide the education loan to the needy students.  
   1. After making the initial payment the complainant called up the representative of OP regarding the admission but was told that the admission shall be completed in the first week of February. The complainant did not receive any call for the admission. Thereafter, she approached OP regarding the loan and admission but there was no positive response from the side of OP. Therefore, the complainant requested for return of retention fee of Rs.40,250/- but got nothing except assurances. The complainant wrote various emails, made telephonic calls and personal visits to OP for refund of Rs.40,250/- but to no avail.
   2. Thus, aggrieved the complainant approached this forum with the prayer to direct the OP to refund the retention fee of Rs.40,250/- to the complainant, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and Rs.22,000/- as litigation cost.
2. OP resisted the complaint on the ground that the present complaint is beyond the period of limitation and as such barred by limitation. OP further submitted that the prospectus issued by OP clearly mentions in page No.77 about the non-refund of the fee. It is further reiterated that the selection letter very clearly mentions that the retention fee is non-refundable.
   1. It is submitted that OP has a tie-up with the various banks and have been providing education loan facilities to the students after conducting the due diligence of the individual applicants.  The complainant was unable to give good/sound security as per the banks need, therefore the bank asked the complainant to give her original documents and certificate but she refused to do so and as such the loan could not be sanctioned to her.  It is further submitted that emails of the complainant annexed with the complaint are after one year of depositing the retention fee and are of 8^th and 9^th January.  It is thus prayed that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of OP, therefore the complaint should be dismissed.
3. Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit. On the other hand, OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 09.10.14.
4. No written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.
5. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and have also perused the record.
6. Main issue of contention between the parties is that the complainant is seeking refund of the retention fee paid by her to OP which has not been refunded till date. Preliminary objection raised by the OP is that the present complaint is barred by limitation, is false as the complainant has placed on record a copy of e-mail dated 11.03.11 wherein it is stated by the OP that sanctioning of loan would take almost another one month.  Thereafter no formal communication was made by OP regarding the loan not being sanctioned. The present complaint is filed on 30.04.13 and therefore the complaint is within the limitation period.
7. The next issue raised by OP regarding the fee not refundable is stated in the selection letter and prospectus. Going through the trail- email it is observed that the complainant received the selection letter dated 30.12.10, on 25.02.11 which confirms the malafide intention of OP and that reaffirms complainant being not aware that the retention fee was non-refundable. Further there is no documentary evidence on record whether the complainant had access to the prospectus issued by the IIPM, hence we are the opinion that the terms & conditions which were not made available or to which the complainant was not aware about cannot be binding upon the complainant. Even otherwise as the fee was paid on 10.01.11 whereas the selection letter of OP was received by complainant on 25.02.11.
8. It is next observed from the e-mails annexed that complainant could not avail of the education loan facility as the bank had disapproved the request of the complainant on the ground that she did not have any property or guarantor. It is only after her loan was rejected that she demanded refund of Rs.40,250/- paid by her to OP.
9. Further OP’s submission that all the e-mails annexed by the complainant are after one year of depositing the retention fee is totally incorrect.
10. In light of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the OP’s case is, all lies and conjectures. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.40,250/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization to the complainant  within a period of one month failing which OP shall be liable to pay Rs.40,250/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Additionally we direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for harassment including the litigation cost.

          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 30.04.19