DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No : 359 OF 2011 Date of Institution : 10.08.2011 Date of Decision : 07.12.2011 Anmol Goyal d/o Sh. Arun Goyal, R/o #354, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S MCM DAV College for Women, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh, through its Principal. ---Opposite Party BEFORE: SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA PRESIDING MEMBER SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Ms. Anuradha Gupta, Adv for Complainant. Sh. Ravi Kant, Adv for the OP. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1] Factually speaking, the Complainant was a student of MCM DAV College for Women, in the B.Com course. She paid Rs.22,660/- as fee for B.Com (2nd year) for the session 2010-2011 on 7.7.2010. In the meantime, the Complainant also got admission in S.D. College, Sector 32, Chandigarh, on 16.7.2010. Accordingly, she requested the OP for refund of the fee deposited by her, as she had not attended a single class for the relevant year. The Complainant has stated that the seat vacated by her was also filled by the next person on the waiting list, maintained by the OP. She has further stated that the OP has refunded only Rs.13,596/- to her. The Complainant has contended that as per directions issued by the UGC, the institutions and universities in the public interest shall maintain the waiting list of students/ candidates and in the event of any student admitted withdraws before the starting of the course, the waited listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- shall be refunded and returned by the institution/ university to the student or candidate who had withdrawn from the course. She has stated that in accordance with the aforesaid directions, the OP was entitled for deduction of Rs.1000/- only and the balance amount should have been refunded to her. The Complainant has, thus, filed this complaint, alleging deficiency in service by the OP for withholding and non-payment of the balance amount. She has prayed for refund of the withheld amount, along with interest and compensation. 2] After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP. 3] OP in reply has maintained that the Complainant had taken admission in B.Com (1st year) in the session 2009-10. As she choose to leave the college of her own in the 2nd year, and no advertisement is issued for direct admission in B.Com (2nd year), so there was no waiting list and the seat vacated by her remained unfilled in B.Com (2nd year), as well as B.Com (3rd year). Copy of the admission register showing that the roll number of the Complainant was not allotted to any other candidate has been placed on record. As per the OP, the rules regarding refund has been framed by the UGC, New Delhi, which is as under:- “The Ministry of Human Resources Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/ candidates. In the event of a student/ candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (One Thousand Only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/ University to the student/ candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.” These Rules were adopted by the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration. Relevant order of the department has been placed on record as Annexure R-6. In the present case, the Complainant had joined a three year decree course, starting July, 2009. She left the course after completing one year and the seat left by her remained vacant. So, as per the norms, 60% of the amount deposited by the Complainant was refunded to her. In case of the Complainant, the admission process started on 5.7.2010 and ended on 14.7.2010. The application for refund of fee was given on 16.7.2010. Praying that the Complainant is not entitled to any further amount, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6] The matter involves a demand for refund of tuition fee paid by the Complainant to the OP for pursuing B.Com (2nd year) course with them. Both the parties have placed reliance on the UGC Guidelines to substantiate their claim. In this regard, order dated 29.3.2007 of the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration, which has been placed on record by the OP as Annexure R-6, also needs to be perused. Under Category-A, rules for the Complainant, who falls in category-A are as under:- Category-A Refund of tuition fees shall be applicable to regular course of decree classes like B.A., B.Com, B.Sc. (Med. and Non Med.) and Post Graduation M.A., M.Com. and M.Sc. Sr.No. | Particulars | Extent of refund of fees allowed | 1. | Students requesting for refund after admission where no class has been attended and an intimation about the cancellation of their candidature was received by the concerned College prior to the close of admissions | 90% of the tuition fee to be refunded. No amount of fund is to be refunded. |
7] To our mind, the aforesaid order of the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration is clear on the aspect of refund of tuition fee. According to the said order, the OP is liable to refund 90% of the tuition fee amount deposited by the Complainant. 8] The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has taken a similar view, vide order dated 13.10.2011, in case GGDSD Chandigarh Versus Vandana Vaid, Appeal Case No. 246 of 2011, and directed the Institution to refund the entire fee. 9] In the cited case, the seat vacated by the Complainant had been filed up by another candidate. However, in the instant case, the Complainant has alleged that the seat vacated by her was filled up by another candidate. The OP has denied this contention and has stated that the seat remained vacant for the succeeding two years. But, the Complainant has not placed any cogent and convincing evidence on record to substantiate her averments. Therefore, we cannot allow for full refund. However, the amount of 90% of the tuition fee paid, as per the guidelines of the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration, should have been refunded to the Complainant. 10] In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed. OP is directed to return the remaining amount refundable, as per the guidelines of the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration, so that the total refunded amount comes to 90% of the tuition fee deposited by the Complainant. The OP will also pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant. 11] The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they would be liable to pay interest on the decretal amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order, till the date of actual payment, besides paying Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. 12] Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 07/12/2011 Sd- (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
