DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 89/2014

Sh. Rohit Sharma,

S/o Sh. Pawan Kumar,

R/o 1098, Near Jamini Hospital,

Sonipat (Haryana).                                                ……Complainant

Versus

Indian Institute of Planning and Management,

(Through its Director/Dean)

IIPM Campus

Satbari, Chandan Hola

Chattarpur, Bhati Mines Road,

New Delhi – 110074.

Also at: Level 5, Qutub Institutional Area,

             New Delhi.                                               ……Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 05.03.14                                                            Date of Order        :  30.12.15

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

According to the complainant, he had taken admission in ICHEC (Under Graduate Programme) in the OP Institute on 1.8.2013 and paid Rs. 1 Lakh in cash towards registration/admission fee  on the same day which was collected by a representative of the OP from his house at Sonepat.  However, thereafter due to interest in medical line, the complainant decided not to pursue the said course in OP Institute and asked the OP to refund the admission fee to the complainant.  Thereafter, he wrote several e-mails to the OP and when he did not get any response, he got a legal notice served on the OP through his advocate but to no effect.  Hence, pleading unfair trade practice and  deficiency in service, the complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to refund Rs. 1 Lakh towards admission fee, Rs. 2 Lacs towards damages/compensation on account of mental agony, pain etc. and also cost of litigation.

OP has filed  written statement which is neither signed by the authorized person nor by the advocate.  Nor any Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the OP.  Therefore, no written statement has been filed on behalf of the OP according to law. 

Let the things remain as they are.  The case of the OP is that the complainant never made any such request to the OP.  So far as the fee is concerned, it is stated as under:

“FEE

First installment of tuition fee along with the admission fee and refundable caution deposit for library etc. must be paid at least six months before the beginning of the programme.

All other fees are to be paid in three more installments (due two, five and eight months after the beginning of the session).  Provisionally admitted students are refunded fees only in the event of their failure in qualifying examination and if the result is known before 1^st September.  In all other cases, fees once paid are not refundable under any circumstances.  Annual (three trimesters) seat rent, annual establishment fee and refundable caution deposit must be paid along with the first installment of tuition fee etc. at the time of admission, if residential accommodation is required.  Students are allowed to stay in the institute’s accommodation up to a maximum duration of 3 trimesters.  If they are required to vacate early, proportionate seat rent only is refunded.  Male students making their own arrangements after opting.”

It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

          Complainant has filed a rejoinder.

          Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence.   On the other hand, defence of the defendant has been struck off vide our order dated 27.4.2015.  We have gone through the file very carefully.

          It stands proved from the record that the complainant had deposited Rs. 1 Lakh towards admission fee for the UG programme at OP Institute on 1^st August, 2013 (copy of receipt dated 1.8.2013 is Annx. B).  Copies of e-mail messages sent by the complainant to the OP are Annex. C collectively, from a perusal of which it transpires that the complainant had written to the OP to refund the fee on 16.8.13, 14.9.13 and 22.2.14 but, however, to no effect.

          It is not the case of the OP that the seat vacated by the complainant had not been filled or that the OP  suffered any financial loss on this account.  It is also not the case of the OP that the complainant had attended any classes and thus became disentitled to claim the fee amount.

          Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that by not refunding the admission fee the OP committed deficiency in service.  We hold accordingly.

                In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs. 1 Lakh towards admission fee and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and pain and litigation charges to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order.

                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  30.12.15.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                             (N.K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT  

30.12.2015

Present –   None.

          Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs. 1 Lakh towards admission fee and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and pain and litigation charges to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order.   Let the file be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                  (N.K. GOEL)    MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT