not refundable" is unconscionable as well as voidable <br /> and therefore not actionable. A student or a trainee <br /> may leave in the midstream if he finds<br /> the service deficient and sub standard and non <br /> yielding and to tell him that "fees once <br /> paid is not refundable" is uncalled for and <br /> unfair trade practice as no service provider can take <br /> or charge the consideration of the service which it has <br /> either not given or has not been availed."<br /> Counsel for complainant also relied upon another case of Pondicherry State Commission reported as 2006 CTJ 672 wherein it was interalia held that :<br /> " Irrespective of what the College stated in its <br /> Prospectus, non refund of unutilized amount <br /> of fee after the college already filled up vacant seat<br /> certainly constituted deficiency in service."<br /> 6. Likewise in another case reported as Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University v. Ashok Kumar Jain II (2006) CPJ 398 "wherein application of candidate requesting for cancellation of admission and and withdrawl of fees was declined and the University was willing to refund only Rs.4500/- as per prospectus. Out of deposited amount , Rs.15000/- charged towards samester fee full/part- Held that -Amount received for a particular service cannot be forfeited, if consumer had not availed or not been provided said service-Complainant entitled to refund of Rs.15000/- since he was not provided any service of tuition. <br /> 7. In another latest case reported as 2008 CTJ 419 Govt. College for Girlsvs. Ms. Aditi Sharma wherein student took admission in B.Com first year and deposited admission charges of Rs.3780/-. Next day she changed mind and got admission in DaV College and claimed refund of fees- Allowed while brushing aside Prospectus condition about non refund- Held- since vacant seat was filled immediately and College suffered no loss. “ In another case of Tamil Naidu State Consumer Commission S. Ganga Higher Secondary School vs. C. Nithya ( minor ) hwere on the facts complainant studied in School for 90 days and withdrew School Voluntarily- Refund of one third of the amount pid by the complainant plus costs were awarded. Therefore, considering the pious objective and noble cause of imparting education but now converting into commercial venture in the form of educational , Technical Institution and coaching centres in the Country, Forum cannot ignore social objective of beneficial enactment of Consumer protection Act to thwart attempt of educational institution to fortfeit the entire fees and admission charges even without availing of educational services by the candidate either by voluntary surrender of seat or for some other plausible reason. Therefore, it would meet ends of justice to allow the opposite party to deduct one fourth amount of Rs.49500/- and refund balance amount with monetary compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of deficiency in service besides cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- payable by the opposite parties to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/desopatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 10.6.2008 Member President.