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 /> Likewise in 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 /> 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- 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 tution. In the instant case, no doubt, complainant has surrendered his seat after commencement of academic session and attended classes of different subjects for three days in October 2007. However, University had not come forward with any defence plea that it failed to fill the vacant seat left by the candidate throughout the academic session and as such incurred financial losses for the said period. Therefore, opposite party cannot be allowed to gain unjust enrichment by forfeiting entire amount of tution fee of Rs.39500/- and also bus charges of Rs.10500/- by allotment of seat to some other candidate as complainant has not availed of education services and alo bus facility. Notwithstanding the the condition incorporated in clause 10.4 and 10.5 of the University Prospectus and the undertaking given by the candidate and his mother/guardian as the forfeiture of entire fees amounts to unfair trade practice. Equally, we cannot be impervious to the fact that complainant had availed of education services for about three days after commencement of academic session in Oct.2007, so the opposite party is entitled to forfeit 25% of the tution fees of Rs.37000/- and also admission charges of Rs.2500/- incurred in process of admission and other arrangements.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we accept this complaint partly and direct opposite party to refund tution fee after deducting 25% of the tution fee and Rs.2500/- as admission charges besides that Rs.10500/- as bus charges be also refunded on account of unutilized bus services. We further award monetary compensation and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- payable by the opposite party to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<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 /> 6.5.2008 Member President.<br />