FACTS Complainant who is a qualified candidate of JEE (Main), 2021 registered on CSAB (Central Seat Allocation Board) portal to participate in CSAB, 2021 Special Round. He paid a sum of Rs.37,000/- on 29/11/2021 and Rs.38,000/- on 14/11/2021 including the non-refundable processing fee of Rs.2000/- as partial Admission Fees to Opposite Party No. 3 for getting  admission in ECE Bachelor course in the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kalyani, West Bengal. On 11/12/2021 the father of the complainant by a letter informed the Opposite Party No. 2 that Complainant is not in a position to take admission in the said Institution and he prayed for refund of the fees paid by him as per rules. Subsequently, several letters on various dates were also issued on behalf of the Complainant requesting for refund. However, by a letter dated 17/02/2022 Opposite Party No. 1 informed them following the rules as laid down by JoSAA (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) Business Rules, the Institute-Opposite Party No. 1 cannot entertain the request for refund of tuition fees to the Complainant. According to Complainant, much before the admission in the Opposite Party No. 1-Institute started, Complainant duly informed them that he was not going to join to Opposite Party No. 1- Institute as he got an opportunity for admission to some other institute. So, he is entitled to get back the amount which was deposited by them except the amount of non-refundable processing fees of Rs.2000/-. This act on the part of the Opposite Parties amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. So, Complainant filed this case praying for refund of Rs.73,000/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/-. Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 appeared through their duly authorized representatives and filed a written version with the caption “Response to the petition/complaint” stating that the Complainant participated in Special Round for admission in the year 2021-2022 and was allotted a seat in Special Round- II. He accepted the seat by paying the acceptance fee to the Central Seat Allocation Board (CSAB) and the CSAB transferred the said fees to the admitting institute excluding the processing charges. Complainant’s case comes under the rules and regulations as defined by Central Seat Allocation Board (CSAB), 2021 and following the said rules, the fees deposited by him cannot be refunded. In their written version which was received through postal service, Opposite Party No. 3 and 4 claimed the instant case is not at all maintainable in this Commission as the Complainant cannot claim to be a ‘Consumer’ and the Opposite Parties are not the service provider. Apart from this, it is submitted that the JoSAA conducted first six (06) regular rounds of seat allocation to IITs and NIT+ System and CSAB, 2021 conducted two (02) special vacant seats filling rounds. Complainant got himself registered with CSAB, 2021 for participating in special vacant seats filling rounds by way of paying special round participation fees of Rs.37,000/- on 29/11/2021. Initially he was allotted a seat in the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, Bachelor of Technology Mechanical Engineering with specialization in Design and Manufacturing Academic Programme in Special Round-1 and Complainant accepted the said seat and deposited Rs.38,000/- as Special Round Seat Acceptance fee on 04/12/2021 and for better upgradation of his choice he chose the “FLOAT” option as provided in Business Rules of CSAB-2021 for Special Rounds. Complainant participated in Special Round- II for getting better choice and thereafter, was allotted a seat in Indian Institute of Information Technology ((IIIT), Kalyan, West Bengal 4 years B.Tech. Programme of Electronics and Communication Engineering. But he failed to report at the said Institute at Kalyani to take admission within the stipulated time and accordingly, the fees deposited by the Complainant was not refundable in accordance with the rules of CSAB, 2021. So, they prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint. Complainant has filed evidence and both the parties have submitted relevant papers and documents in support of their contentions. Now, the points for determination in this case are- - Is the instant complaint maintainable?
- Is the Complainant entitled to relief (s) as prayed for?
Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience. FINDINGS In support of his claim to get back the money deposited with the Opposite Parties, Complainant has produced the guidelines of University Grants Commission (UGC) in respect of refund of fees and non-retention of original certificates notification dated of October, 2018. In point No.4.1.3 of the said notification one five-tier system for refund of fees, has been shown with percentage of refund of fees vis-à-vis the point of time, when the notice of withdrawal of admission is received in the Higher Educational Institutions (HEI). According to Complainant, the last date of admission was fixed on 17.12.2021 and he informed for withdrawal of admission seven days before the last date of admission, as argued in their written argument. So, following the said UGC guidelines, Complainant is entitled to a refund of 90% of the amount on admission fees excluding non-refundable processing fees of Rs.2,000/-, which comes to Rs.65,700/-. Complainant claims to have sent several letters to the Opposite Parties for refund of the amount of Rs. (75,000/ – 73,000/-) after deduction on non-refundable processing charges and he has also produced the letters in this case. In their written version filed by Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 have categorically claimed that the Opposite Parties are not at all governed by the UGC guidelines and the same are not at all applicable to them. It has been further been contended that Opposite Party No.3, that is the Central Seat Allocation Board (CSAB – 2021) is under the direct control of the Ministry of Education, Government of India and receiving the funds from the Central Government. This contention of the Opposite Parties, however, has not been denied specifically by the complainant in his evidence. He is also found to remain silent about this in the written argument filed on his behalf. From the materials on record, it is found that the Business Rules or working policies for Joint Admission for Academic Programme IITs, NITs, IIESTs, IIITs for the Academic Session 2021 – 2022, were framed and which were duly endorsed by the Joint Implementation Committee, JEE (Advanced), 2021 and approved by the Chairman of Joint Admission Board, JEE (Advanced) and approved by the Core Committee of the Central Seat Allocation Board, 2021. The seat allocations were made by Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA), 2021 and Central Seat Allocation Board (CSAB – 2021) in terms of the Business Rules which prescribed along with others about payment of fees like Special Round participation fees and Seat Acceptance fees. It is further said that, there were six Regular Round of seat allocation, conducted by JoSAA and two Special Rounds for filling vacant seats conducted by CSAB – 2021. According to Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4, the Complainant appeared in the JEE – MAINS Examination and he was ranked at 60,536 in common ranking list in general category in paper – I. He participated in six Regular Rounds, conducted by JoSAA, but failed to get a seat according to his choice. However, subsequently, the Complainant got himself registered with Central Seat Allocation Board (CSAB – 2021) for participating in Special Rounds; there were two Special Rounds- I & II held in 2021 after the original Six Rounds, conducted by JoSAA. Following the Rules of Central Seat Allocation Board (CSAB – 2021), Complainant registered his name by paying participation fees of Rs.37,000/- on 29.11.2021. Out of this participation fees, Rs.2,000/- was non-refundable processing fees. It has further been disclosed that after Special Round- I, CSAB i.e. Opposite Party No.3 allotted him a seat in the Indian Institute of Information Technology Designing and Manufacturing, Kurnool, Manipur in 4-year Bachelor of Technology, mechanical engineering with specialization in Designing and Manufacturing Academic Programme. Complainant accepted the said seat offered to him and paid the Special Round Seat Acceptance Fees of Rs.38,000/- on 04.12.2021. But for better upgradation, he chose ‘float’ option as provided in the Business Rules for Special Rounds and waited for a better option and participated in Special Round- II. This time he was allotted a seat in Indian Institution of Information of Technology (IIIT), Kalyani (Opposite Party No.1) 4-year B. Tech Programme of Electronics and Communication Engineering. All these things are found to have not been denied by the Complainant.  Both parties have produced rules of CSAB- 2021/ Information Brochure, CSAB-2021 Special Round. Complainant in his argument draws our attention to Clause 2 (ii) & 2 (iii) and Clause 5 (a) & 5 (b) of the guidelines of the Central Seat Allocation Board, 2021 dated 28/11/2021 in support of his contention to get refund. In the written argument also these two clauses have been cited. Clause 2 of CSAB- 2021 deals with general guidelines.
The provisions of 2 (ii) & 2 (iii) are reproduced herein below:- (ii) All the candidates who have accepted and paid the Seat Acceptance Fee (as Partial Admission Fee) against the JoSAA- 2021 allotted seat and want to participate in CSAB- 2021 special round are required to register on CSAB portal and pay the CSAB special round non-refundable processing fee of Rs.2000/-. (their partial admission fee already paid will be considered as Participation Fee for CSAB special rounds and this amount will be transferred to the finally Admitting Institution). Such candidates will be participating in special rounds while retaining their seat for which they have already secured admission after JoSAA rounds. But, in case a new seat is allotted in CSAB- 2021 special round then previously allotted seat of JoSAA rounds will AUTOMATICALLY GET CANCELLED and candidate will not have any claim on the previously secured seat (refer Annexure- 1). (iii) The candidates who had already paid the seat acceptance fee during the JoSAA- 2021 Rounds but their seat was WITHDRAWN/CANCELLED (Last Allotted Seat Which Was Withdrawn/Cancelled Must Be from NIT- System Only) after Document verification are required to pay only Rs.2000/- as non-refundable processing charges. (Their seat acceptance fee already paid will be adjusted against the Participation Fee for CSAB special rounds and this amount will be transferred to the finally Admitting Institution). This will not be applicable if the last allotted seat is withdrawn/cancelled from IITs. Such candidates are required to pay the participation fee as mentioned in as per the section 3.2.2 (Refer Table in the section). Likewise, Clause 5 relates to Refund of Participation and Seat Acceptance Fee where 5 (a) provides if a candidate has already withdrawn the seat allotted in JoSAA Rounds (in NIIT+ System) as per the schedule given on CSAB- 2021website and does not participate in Special Round counselling, his/her Seat Acceptance Fee will be refunded after deducting Rs.2000/- as per JoSAA-2021 Business Rules and 5(b) provides if no seat is allotted to the fresh candidate in the CSAB- 2021 Special Rounds, his/her Special Round Participation Fee will be refunded after deducting processing fee of Rs.2000/-. Likewise, Clause (c) provides if no seat allotted to the fresh  candidate in Special Round- I and the candidate chooses not to participate in CSAB- 2021 Special Round- II, his/her participation fee will be refunded after deducting processing fee of Rs.2000/-, (d) if a fresh candidate gets a seat allotted in Special Round- I and does not report, his/her participation fee and Seat Acceptance Fee (if paid) will be refunded after deducting Rs.6000/-. Opposite Parties claimed their action in the matter of refund of the fees paid by the complainant was in accordance with Clause 5 (h). Let us see what is there in the said Clause which reads as follows:- (h) After CSAB Special Round- II, (i) if a candidate is allotted a fresh seat and does not join the allotted institute OR (ii)If a candidate is not allotted a fresh seat but RETAINS his/her earlier allotted seat [either from JoSAA or CSAB Special Round- I] and does not join the earlier allotted institute. Then in both the above cases, the Fees deposited by the candidate will not be refunded. Fee paid by such candidates will be transferred to the Allotted Institute after deducting the processing charges of Rs.2000/- each for JoSAA 2021 Rounds and CSAB 2021 Special Rounds. Therefore, given the case of the complainant, we find his case falls under 5 (h) (i) because after Special Round- II, he was given a fresh seat at Kalyani in Opposite Party No. 1- Institution but he did not join the said allotted institute. So, following the provision of the said Clause, fees deposited by him were not refunded. Complainant in his written argument, has not stated anything about this provision under which his case falls. Here, complainant is found to have relied upon the rules of CSAB-2021 but he seeks relief under certain provisions of the rules or guidelines which do not match with his case. But at the same time, he keeps silent about the provision in case of refund which squarely comes into play into his case i.e. 5 (h). Complainant has claimed that he neither availed of any service of Opposite Party No. 1, nor blockage any seat therein for the said upcoming session thereby causing no loss to them. But this contention has been strongly denied by the Opposite Parties. According to them, the institute cannot admit any candidate in the vacant seat from the wait list on their own. In this connection, on behalf of the Opposite Parties produced one Circular dated 12th November, 2021 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Education Department of Higher Education, Technical Section- 1 addressed to the Director of all IIIT’s (PPP) regarding special rounds of CSAB- 2021 for filling up vacant seats of JoSAA rounds. It also gives the tentative schedules of special rounds. This circular is found to have strictly prohibited any spot admission at the level of the institute. So, Opposite Party No. 1- Institute where the seat of the complainant was allotted after Special Round- II by CSAB- 2021 was not in a position to fill up the seat after withdrawn by the complainant. That apart, it has been claimed that due to the blockage of the seat one of the candidates from the rank list did not get a chance to study at the institute in ECE Department of IIIT, Kalyani. Therefore, the institute has lost about Rs.6,50,000/- in tuition fees @ Rs.90,000/- per semester due to the blockage. So, Opposite Party No. 1 has specifically claimed that the complainant’s contention that he has not blocked any seat in the institution is not at all correct. On behalf of the complainant several judgments have been referred to: II (2018) CPJ 467 NC, IV (2018) CPJ 288 NC, IV (2019) CPJ, 334 NC, II (2019) CPJ, 255 NC. Be it noted here that in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjit Kaur, III (2010) CPJ, 19 SC, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a student is not a consumer and the educational institution is not a service provider. It has also been held there that the Commission cannot issue a direction which violates the statutory provision or that neither a court, nor any tribunal has the competence to issue a direction contrary to law and to act in contravention of a statutory provision. We find in many cases, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held in favour of the student and passed order for refund fees. In II (2018) CPJ 467 NC it was held in favour of the student where the institute was not recognized. In IV (2018) CPJ 288 NC, it was held following the notice of UGC for refund to candidates withdrawing from programme. It was stated that in the event of a student or candidate withdrawing before starting the course, the wait listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. But in the present case, so far as the filling of the seat consequent upon withdrawn by the complainant, it is clear case of the Opposite Parties that the seat remained vacant as the institute was not in a position to get it filled. In Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess & anr. Vs. Aashima Jarial II (2019) CPJ 255 NC where said Maharshi Dayanand University case and other cases were discussed by the Hon’ble National Commission, it has also been held that educational institutions covered under UGC, AICTE, State universities, Central boards, State boards etc. can claim immunity from the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for educational services and under the judgment in Maharshi Dayanand University’s case. However, in that case National Commission ordered in favour of the student for refund of fees. But the facts of the said case are found to be different from our present case. In IV (2019) CPJ 334 NC, it has been observed by the National Commission that a student is not a consumer and institution is not a service provider. However, the differentiation is mainly for such matters which have provided under some statutes and basically relate to academic, teaching standard, examination award of degree etc. It was also held that the matter of fees (not the fixation) can be addressed by the Consumer Forum. So, following the aforesaid decisions and taking into consideration of the various decisions as discussed above, if we hold the facts and circumstances in this case in the light of the judgment- IV (2019) CPJ 334 NC, that the Consumer Protection Act is applicable in the present case, but in that event also, the complainant cannot get any relief as we are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties, following the rules, guidelines or working policies of the Central Seat Allocation Board- 2021, did not entertain the request for refund of the tuition fees to the complainant and their decision cannot at all be said to be not in accordance with the rules and guidelines of the Central Seat Allocation Board- 2021 or that the acts of the Opposite Parties are whimsical in nature. So, we cannot say that the acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part. So, the instant case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs. |
