Complainants in person
Advocate Vilas D. Dukare for
the Opponent No.1.
Smt. N. N. Lokhande
I/c Asst. Director (Tech) for
the Opponent No.2.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 16th April 2013
This complaint is filed by student and her parent against Educational Institute and Directorate of Technical Education for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as under-
[1] The complainant No.1 is father of the complainant No.2. Complainant No.2 took admission in the Educational Institute i.e. Opponent No.1 which is working under the control of the Opponent No.2. At the time of admission she had paid Rs.62,250/-. The academic session of the Opponent No.1 started on 23/8/2010 and the cut off date for admission process was on 25/9/2010. The complainant No.2 cancelled admission on 09/9/2010 i.e. before cut off date and applied for refund of fees alongwith the rules. But the complainants were informed that the admission was cancelled after starting the academic year, before the cut off date for admission and the seat could not be filled by the college hence the complainants are not entitled for refund of fees. Initially they were informed that they should wait for refund of money till 25/09/2010 i.e. cut off date for admission. Opponents have caused deficiency in service by not refunding the fees hence complainant has filed present complaint and asked for direction to the opponent for refund of fees of Rs.62,250/-, Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for mental harassment and fine for not refunding the fees, Rs.10,000/- by way of cost of proceeding and also claimed interest.
[2] Opponents resisted the claim by filing written statement alongwith documents. The Opponents have denied the contents of the complaint in toto. It is flatly denied that the complainant was directed to wait for refund of money till completion of admission process. It is the case of the opponents that as per the rules if any vacant seat has been filled up after the cancellation of admission of the Complainant No.2 then and then only the complainant was entitled for refund as per the rules. It is also contended that complainant is not a consumer hence complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled for any amount except security deposit. Opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
[3] After scrutinizing the documents which are filed on behalf of both parties, perusing the affidavits and hearing the argument of both parties following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainants have proved that the opponents have caused deficiency in service ? | In the affirmative |
2 | Whether complainants are entitled for compensation ?> | In the affirmative |
3 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed |
REASONS-
As to the Point Nos. 1 to 3-
The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that complainant No.2 took admission in the college of the Opponent No.1 on 09/8/2010. The academic session was started on 23/8/2010 and the cut off date for admission was 25/09/2010. The admission was cancelled on 09/9/2010.
The dispute between the parties is as regards the rules of refund of fees. The complainant has produced voluminous documents such as application for cancellation of admission, the receipts of payment of fees, the application made by the complainant for refund of fees, reply given by the opponent on 17/10/2010 alongwith rules of Directorate of Technical Education, Mumbai. The Opponents have placed reliance mostly on the rules which are quoted as follows-
Sr.No. | SITUATION | REFUND AMOUNT |
1 | Request for cancellation of admission is received before the date of start of academic session and the seat could be filled by the Institute before the cut off date | Entire fee less Rs.1000/- |
2 | Request for cancellation of admission is received after the start of academic session and the seat could be filled by the Institute before the cut off date | Entire fees less the total fees (i.e Tuition, Development & Hostel fees) on pro rata basis * |
3 | Request for cancellation of admission is received before/after start of the academic session and the seat could not be filled by the Institute | No refund (except the security deposit) |
According to the Opponents as per rule 8.9 if the admission is cancelled before start of academic session the candidate is entitled to get refund by deducting Rs.1000/- as process fees. If the admission is cancelled after beginning of academic session and the vacant seat could be filled by the Institute before cutoff date then the candidate is entitled for refund of fees after deducting the fees on pro rata basis. And if the admission is cancelled before/after start of academic session and the seat could not be filled by the Institute then the candidate is not entitled for refund except the security deposit. According to the Opponent No.1 the college could not fill the vacant seat after cancellation of admission by the complainant hence complainant is not entitled for refund except the security deposit.
The complainant has argued before me that there is no any fault on the part of the student for not filling the vacant seat by the Institute. In such circumstances the student is entitled for refund after deducting certain amount. He has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 347 of 2012 in case of Ganapati College of Engineering For Girls vs. Vijeta Mahima Singh. In that proceeding it has been observed that there was no fault of the student for not filling the vacant seat and the student cannot be blamed for the same. If the rules on which the Opponents have placed reliance upon are considered it is crystal clear that the words ‘could not be filled and could be filled’ are referred and these should be interpreted in such a passion that the Institute could have filled the vacant seat. There was no bar to the Institute for filling the vacant seat. Eventhough it reveals from the record that none of the student took admission after cancellation of the admission by the complainant No.2. The complainants cannot be blamed for the same. The Opponent No.1 could have filled the said vacancy after the cancellation of admission by the Complainant No.2. Hence I held that complainants are entitled for refund of fees after deducting Rs.2000/- as processing fees and other charges. Complainants are also entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental and physical agony and Rs.5000/- towards costs of proceeding. I answer points accordingly and pass the following order –
:- ORDER :-
1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opponents have caused deficiency in service by not refunding the fees of complainants.
3. The Opponents are jointly and severally directed to refund the complainant amount of Rs.60,250/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. The Opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental and physical sufferings and Rs.5000/- towards costs of proceeding to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place-Pune
Date- 16/04/2013
