4. In support of his version complainant Aman Arora has tendered in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to C6.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R4.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that refusal of the opposite party University to refund admission fee and hostel charges amounting to Rs.63500/- constitutes deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Institution and he was not provided convenient environment in the hostel and the hostel being far away from the University he wa forced to leave the academic institute.On the other hand forfeiture of tuition fee and admission charges under para 9.4 and 9.5 of the guidelines of the University has been defended as legal and valid and further undertaking submitted by the complainant in the eventuality of surrendering of seat .<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the complainant. Broad facts regarding admission of complainant in BT-MT (INTG) (ECE) (LEET) 3rd Semester Integrated course on payment of Rs.63500/- as admission fee and hostel charges as per receipts Ex.C2 and C3 and further intimation by the complainant to the opposite party University for surrendering the seat are not disputed. However, counsel for the opposite party referred to the guidelines Ex.R2 in para 9.4 and 9.5 to justify the forfeiture of fee and admission charges in the event of surrendering of the seat though admission charges are refundable before commencement of academic session. He has also referred to undertaking given by the complainant vide Ex.R3. This fact is also not disputed that per para - 9 of the guidelines of the Prospectus that University reserves right to fill such vacant seat by offering to any other candidate if available. Opposite party University has also not produced any evidence to establish that seat vacated by the complainant remained unfilled throughout academic session and University suffered financial loss. Therefore, we have no doubt that present case is of voluntary surrender of seat in the opposite party Institution after availing of educational services and hostel facility for a period of about two months. Nevertheless opposite party University cannot justify the forfeiture of amount of Rs.63500/-as admission charges and hostel charges as clearly referred to by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Commission New Delhi in a case reported as FIIT JEE LIMITED vs. MINATHI RATH VI (2006) CPJ 255 wherein it was interalia held that :<br /> Any term of the contract which is voidable <br /> is not enforceable, no service provider like training<br /> institute or coaching centres or educational centres<br /> can be allowed to forfeit the fees or consideration <br /> received in advance in case the student has not availed <br /> the service. Thus the term that "fees once paid is<br /> 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 /> 8. 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 /> 9. In another latest case reported as 2008 CTJ 419 Govt. College for Girls vs. 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 paid by the complainant plus costs were awarded. <br /> 10. Therefore, considering the pious and noble objective of imparting education but now converting into commercial ventures 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 forfeit the entire fees and admission charges and hostel charges though the candidate surrendered the seat for some other plausible reason after availing of educational service for some period . Therefore, it would meet ends of justice to allow the opposite party to deduct one third amount of Rs.63500/- and refund balance amount with monetary compensation of Rs.3000/- for suffering mental agony and physical harassment on account of deficiency in its service besides Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation within one month from the receipt o f copy of this order. <br /> <br /> <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 21.8.2008 Member President