Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 23/07/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.420/2008; Mr.Mahavir D.Chopda v/s. SVKM’S NMIMS University, passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bandra (‘forum’ in short).  It was a consumer complaint dealing with alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/original opponent University (herein after referred as ‘University’) for not refunding the entire admission fees in spite of cancellation of admission. The University, out of entire admission fees of `1,36,650/- and pointing out to their rules of refund, refunded only `1000/-.  The consumer complaint as per impugned order was partly allowed and the University was directed to refund an amount of `1,17,080/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 14/08/2006 till its realization.  Cost of `2,000/- was also awarded in addition to it.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, the University preferred this appeal.

          Heard both the sides.

          Only point that is pressed before us on behalf of the appellant University is that the Rules of refund of the fees on cancellation of the admission were well listed in the prospectus, which was handed over to respondent/original complainant (herein after referred as ‘complainant’) and, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of University. Forum did not appreciate the facts properly and arrived at a wrong conclusion as ultimately submitted.  No other point is raised before us.

          Coming to the factual matrix, the undisputed facts are that the complainant had taken admission for two years full time Master of Business Administration Course for the Academic Years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 on 19/03/2006.  He had paid at that time `1,36,650/- as admission fees. On 02/08/2006 on his own he had intimated to the University that due to personal reasons he intend to discontinue with his studies at the University and he is withdrawing the admission and the University was free to give his seat to any other candidate.  Then on 08/08/2006 University refunded `1000/-.  Subsequent to it, for the first time on 30/12/2006, the complainant raised objection for refunding only `1000/- and requested for refund of full fees and to which University had given reply on 05/01/2007 informing the complainant that he was admitted to FT MBA programme on 19/03/2006 and since he had cancelled his admission on 03/08/2006 i.e. after 30 days, accordingly, fees were refunded as per cancellation rules of the University and for further details complainant was advised to refer to prospectus wherein rules of refund of fees were given. Thereafter, on 16/01/2007 complainant again written with reference to the University letter dated 05/01/2007 and since it forms a basis on which this consumer complaint was filed, we find it proper to reproduce the same:-

“Sub: Refund of fees against cancellation against my admission to FT-MBA

Ref: Your reply dated 05-January-2007

Respected Sir,

The rules for refund of fees as mentioned in the prospectus were ultimately framed by the institute. Incidentally, the prospectus had mentioned the fees to be `1,33,850/- whereas you had collected `1,36,650/- from a minimum estimate of 300 students (present students + those who have cancelled the admission –which amounts to `8,40,000/-).

While taking admission to your institute, I and other students had no choice but to accept all your rules – however wrong and unreasonable they might be.  However Sir, I understand that you may deduct a nominal processing fee- say 10-12% But deducting `1,35,650/- altogether is completely unreasonable. There are many more students facing this situation this year or have faced it in the past years.  Sir, this is not fair considering that many students were admitted to the said course as late as in August.

I humbly request you once again to refund me the remaining part of my fees.”

          Thereafter, further correspondence was exchanged between the parties but, ultimately, consumer complaint was filed on 31/07/2008 before the forum.

          The rules of refund to which the University relies were also reproduced in the written version, reflects the following schedule for refund of fees.

Note: No Refund of fees if any withdrawal of admission is done after the Foundation Programme, irrespective of date of payment of fees.

          In this background, it will be appropriate to refer and to which the forum also made a reference, is the stand of the Government of India which echoed the public policy.  It is a public notice issued on behalf of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) empowered under section 10(n) of the AICTE Act and instructing all Technical Institutions /Universities including deemed Universities imparting technical education regarding matters concerned charging of fees/refund of fees and other related issues.  It is specifically instructed that in the event of student/candidate withdrawing before starting of the Course, wait listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seats and the entire fees collected from the student after deduction of the processing fee of not more than `1000/- shall be refunded and returned by the institution/University to the student/ candidate withdrawing from the programme.  Applicability of such public notice or the instructions given by AICTE to the Universities is not in dispute. What has been stated and argued before us is that those instructions being posterior to the event in question, will not cover the case of the complainant.  We find those instructions reaffirms the public policy on the issue and mere explanatory in nature and, thus, in spirit, even applicable to the case of the complainant. 

          In this background let us consider the case of the University that since after a particular period the complainant had withdrawn himself from the Course or programme, it resulted in keeping vacant his post and instead of full strength of 240 students, they had to continue with the Course in the year 2006 with 239 students only. Thus, University tried to justify retention of substantial portion of the admission fee saying that one post remained vacant because of such cancellation of admission by the complainant.  However, from the information supplied by the University and which is also placed on record as a part of compilation of this appeal by the University marked as Exhibit 2 i.e. SVKM’S Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Admissions for the year 2006-2008 FT Core programme, it could be seen that one Mr.Gupta Ankur K.M. was admitted to the said course on 08/08/2006 that is after the cancellation of his admission by the complainant and the day on which `1000/- were refunded to the complainant.  Therefore, the claim of the University that it was put to loss by cancellation of his admission by the complainant cannot be accepted.

          In the course of argument, Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant also referred to Declaration signed by the complainant and particularly, clause 11 of the said declaration which reads as under:

“11. I fully understand the rules for cancellation of admission and that fees once paid will be refunded as per the rules applicable at that time.”

          Said declaration was signed by the complainant on 20/01/2006 that is much before his taking the admission.  One can understand the plight of a student, who is in disparate need of and anxious to secure his admission to a proper course in a available institution and, thus, his position remains on the weaker side against the mighty University and thus, such student (in our case the complainant) signing whatever documents he was asked to sign, can be viewed in this background.  This is what the complainant has echoed in his letter dated 16/01/2007, supra.  Therefore, such part of conditions either by way of contract or by way of University prospectus, the University referring to such declaration, cannot be taken as valid contract which could be enforced against the student vis-à-vis, the complainant.

          For the reasons stated above, we find the view ultimately taken by the forum justifying the amount directed to be refunded is proper and there is no reason to interfere with the same.  Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order:-

                                                ORDER

Appeal stands dismissed. 

Appellant to bear its own cost and pay `5000/- to the respondent. 

At this stage Ld.counsel for the appellant requested for keeping this order in abeyance in order to move in revision before the Hon’ble National Commission.  Her prayer stands rejected.

Pronounced on 12^th October, 2011.