CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.389/2010

MS. RICHA KASANA,

D/O SH. R.K. KASANA,

R/O B-54, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I,

NEW DELHI

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

VS.

KALKA DENTAL COLLEGE,

THROUGHT ITS MANAGER/PRINCIPAL

KALKA PUBLIC SCHOOL,

ALKHNANDA,

NEW DELHI-110019

………….. RESPONDENT

Date of Order:11.01.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that she was assured by OP that if she takes admission in OP college by 25.8.08 and in case she gets selected in any other college, she would have a liberty to take back the admission-development charge paid to OP.  On the basis of the aforesaid assurance of OP, complainant applied for admission in OP college and submitted the requisite documents and admission fee and other charges amounting to Rs.1,05,000/- on 25.08.08.  

It is further stated that later on complainant found that actual course fee of the college was almost double than the total claimed fee of Rs 6 lakhs as there were many hidden charge/fee which were not disclosed earlier.  In the meantime, complainant got admission in another college of her choice.  Complainant represented Manger/Principle of OP college for refund of the fee which she had deposited with OP college.  However, OP refused to refund the same.

It is further stated that Non-refund of the fee is not only against the guidelines of AIECTE but also against the various judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble National Commission which provides that educational institution is entitled to charge only such fee from the student for which they rendered any service to the student.  In instant case as no service was rendered by OP hence non-refund of money amounts to deficiency in service. 

It is further stated that in spite of several requests of complainant for refund the fee, OP kept on avoiding the matter on one pretext or the other hence complainant filed this complaint.  It is prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,05,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs.50,000/- for compensation as well as Rs.15,000/- for litigation cost.

OP in its reply has submitted plea that this complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the same is time barred.  Further OP does not have any head office within the jurisdiction of this Forum, hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint.  The complaint does not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, as education cannot be treated as a commercial commodity or service

It is further stated that complainant took admission on her own will after getting herself satisfied with the information in the newspaper advertisement, Information Bulletin and through personal visit to the campus. 

It is further stated that the admission was not conditional and subject to withdrawal of admission by the complainant any time at her convenience and refund thereof the partial fee deposited.  There was no such clause that the complainant would be at liberty to take back the admission fee paid in case she gets selected in any other college at any time.

It is further stated that no representation for refund of the partial fee deposited was ever received by OP from the complainant.  The matter was either not pursued at all by the complainant and no such letter dated 06.11.08 was received by OP.  However, in evidence it is stated that only intimation received by OP from father of complainant regarding withdrawal from admission was dated 06.11.08 which was too late for the purpose as per the University rules. 

It is further stated that the decision to withdraw from the admission was taken very belatedly by that time the first semester of the course was nearing completion.  Complainant is liable to pay the balance amount of fee as the same has not been paid by the complainant in spite of repeated reminders. 

We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and carefully perused the record.

The only question for consideration is whether complaint is a ‘consumer’.  Here it is useful to refer to case of Bharti Jindal Vs Swami Vivekananda Group of Institutes & Anr 11(2014) CPJ 179 – In that case complainant got admission in IT branch of the OP and deposited Rs.47080/- on 12.7.10 and Rs.18000/- on 14.7.10.  Due to family circumstances, the complainant could not join course, claimed refund of the amount.  Only Rs.16000/- refunded.  Relying upon Maharshi Dayanand Universities Vs Surjeet Kaur IV(2010) CPJ 19(SC) = V(2010) SCT 545 where it was held that matter of admission, fees etc cannot be a question of deficiency in service and barred to entertain the Consumer Dispute under CP Act.  It was held by Hon’ble SC in Bihar School Examination Board Vs Suresh Pd. Sinha IV(2009) CPJ 34 (SC) = VII(2009) SCT 109 as well as P.T. Kosny & Anr Vs Ellen Charitable Trust 2012(3) C.P.C. 615(SC) that “Education Boards and Universities are not ‘Service Provider’.

Moreover in this case there is nothing on the record to suggest that the admission was given to the complainant on the assurance of OP that if complainant gets admission elsewhere then admission fee would be refunded.

It is significant to note that complainant has alleged to have sent a letter dated 06.11.2008 to OP wherein the father of the complainant stated that complainant is interested in MBBS course whereas OP has rendered the course which is just a BDS course, hence he has asked for refund of the fee.  Though OP has denied about the receipt of the letter but it is stated in the reply that complainant has taken admission in engineering college whereas she was interested in MBBS course.  The fee was deposited in August 2008 whereas refund has been sought vide letter dated 06.11.08.  By that time the course has started and at such an advance stage, the request for refund of fee cannot be considered because that would amount loss of one seat on the part of OP. 

Complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Moreover complainant is not a consumer.  Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

                 (D.R. TAMTA)                                                        (A.S. YADAV)

                    MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT