FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY,PRESIDENT
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant tookadmission with OP-1 Institute on 05.07.2018 in Electrical Engineering (B.E.) stream through councilling process of WB JEE. Complainant paid Rs. 74,250/- to OP-1/Institute on different dates and the OP-1 also issued money receipts. Subsequently, complainant got better opportunity to take admission to Heritage Institute of Technology, Kolkata and he surrendered the seat allotment to the OPs vide letter dated 21.07.2018 prior to beginning of B.E. course. The OPs asked the complainant to surrender original fees book as well as original documents in respect of admission. Complainant and his guardian several occasion approached the OP-2 for refund admission fees and other charges after deducting administrative charges but each and every occasion the OPs assured to refund the admission fee and other charges but in vain. The attitude of the OPs tantamount to deficient in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence, consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant for refund of Rs. 74,250/- along with interest, compensation and litigation cost.
Despite of service of notice, OPs did not turn up to contest the case. As such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.
Points for Determination
- Whether thecomplainant is a consumer and the OP-1/Institute is a service
-
- Whether the complainant deposited Rs.74,250/- to the OP-1 Institute as admission fees and other charges in B.E. course as alleged?
(3) Whether there was any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs?
(4)Whether the complainant is entitled to refund admission fees and other
charges including interest, compensation and litigation cost?
Decision with Reasons
Point Nos. 1 to 4:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
To prove his case, complainant has filed examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit and also relied upon the documents annexed with the complaint petition.
Upon taking into account of the consumer complaint and also considering overall assessment and evaluation of the evidence as well as documents furnished by the complainant, it is found that complainant took admission in B.E.course with the OP-1 Institute through councilling process of WB JEE and deposited Rs.74,250/- to the OP-1 against money receipts dated 06.07.2018 & 07.07.2018 . Fact remains that the complainant got better opportunity to take admission in Heritage Institute of Technology, Kolkata and vide letter dated 21.07.2018 the father of the complainant surrendered seat allotment of his son with a request to refund the deposited amount as early as possible prior to commencement of the course. The OPs did not refund the admission fees and other charges to the complainant in spite of several assurance.
In Jaipreet Singh – Vs - FIIT JEE Ltd. Institution &Anr., RP No. 918/2015 decided on 14.11.2017 the Hon’ble NCDRC has treated students as consumer and the FIT JEE Ltd. Institution &Anr. as a service provider. In fact, the relationship between a Consumers and Service provider depends upon nature of service being provided and relief sought. Complainant had hired the services of the OP-1 institute for consideration so he is consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act. University Grants Commission vide DO No. F.1-3/2007 (CPP-II) dated 11.01.2016 directing the Vice Chancellors of all Universities to abide by the instructions in the Public Notice the Vice Chancellors of all Universities to abide by the instruction in the Public Notice dated 23.04.2017 and to ensure compliance of such instruction all the colleges/ institutions affiliated under such University.
Clause -3 of the said Public Notice dated 23.04.2007 read as follows :
TheMinistry of Human Resources Development and University Grantscommission haveconsidered 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 waitlisted 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. 1,000/- (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 proportionatedeductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.
Complainant deposited Rs.74,250/- to the OP-1 Institute on 06.07.2018& 07.07.2018 as admission fees and other charges and prior to beginning of B.E. course, complainant surrendered his seat vide letter dated 21.07.2018 with a request to refund the admission fees and other charges as he got better opportunity to take admission in Heritage Institute of Technology, Kolkata.Even, the OPs did not refund the admission fees and other charges to the complainant. It is well settled principle of law that in the event of student withdrawing prior to starting of the course, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seats and the entire fees collected from the student should be refunded after deducting Rs. 1,000/- as administrative charges but in the instant case the OPs did not refund admission fees and other charges.
Based on the foregoing discussion, it is concluded that the complainant is a consumer and the OP-1 Institute is a service provider in the instant case. The complainant deposited Rs. 74,250/- to the OP-1 as admission fees and other charges. Prior to beginning of B.E.course, complainant surrendered his seat with a request to refund the deposited amount in terms of thenotification of UGC vide DO No. F.1-3/2007 (CPP-II) dated 11.01.2016. The attitude of the OPs is tantamount to unfair trade practice. There is no contradictory evidence on the part of the OPs to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for. Thus, all the points under determination answered in the affirmative.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only.
OPs are directed to refund Rs.74,250/- (Rupees Seventy Four thousand Two hundred Fifty ) only (after deducting Rs.1,000/- towards administrative charges) to the complainant, also to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand ) as compensation for unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him apart from litigation cost. The order is to be compliedwithin a period of 45 days, otherwise simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be paid for the total amount ordered from the date of filing of the complaint petition (i.e. on 11.07.2019) till realization in default, complainant may put the order in execution according to law.
