1) Consumer dispute between the parties is as under -
    The Complainant is a girl from middle class family and with a desire to support her family financially and for her future prospects, she decided to pursue a four year nursing course offered by Opposite Party–Bombay Hospital College of Nursing. Mrs. Sugathan is the Principal of the aforesaid institute.
 

2) According to the Complainant, Opposite Party College informed her that first year fees amount was Rs.54,700/- and the same was to be paid in single installment by demand draft in favour of College. Due to poor financial condition, the Complainant’s parents took some loan amount from their relatives and friends and on 11^th August, 2008, the Complainant deposited with the College an amount of Rs.54,700/- by draft drawn on Union Bank of India, Lalbaug Branch, Mumbai.
 

3) It is submitted that unfortunately after depositing aforesaid amount of Rs.54,700/- with Opposite Party, within few days the Complainant’s financial condition took an adverse turn and the Complainant with a sad heart, constrained to withdraw from nursing education. The Complainant approached authorities of Opposite Party College to cancel her registration and for refund annual fees amounting to Rs.54,700/-. The Complainant had filled her cancellation request in the form provided by the Opposite Party on 30/09/2008. That time the Complainant was assured by the Opposite Party that within a week time the refund amount will be remitted to the Complainant by bank draft. Even after passing of several months the Complainant did not receive the refund amount. She had visited College authorities and met Account Clerk, Mrs. James, who assured that Complainant that matter is being looked into and she will receive refund amount claimed within short period. The Complainant repeatedly visited Opposite Party College and contacted authority on telephone but there was no response from the Opposite Party. The Complainant wrote reminder letter dtd.15/06/2010 requesting Opposite Party to settle her long pending dues because her family was in dire need of money but till today Opposite Party has not given reply to the letter.
 

4) It is submitted by the Complainant that as per the rules approved by the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti vide letter No.PNS/Meeting/March/2007/122/dated 14/03/2007 concerning the refund of fees is (Rule 17.3) only a maximum amount of Rs.1,000/- has to be deducted from the amount received and the balance amount has to be immediately refunded back to the student provided the application for withdrawal is submitted within 20 days from the date of cut-off date and according to the Complainant, cut-off date was 11/10/2008. The Complainant had submitted withdrawal application on 30/09/08. Therefore, Complainant is entitled to receive Rs.53,700/- (Rs.54,700 – Rs.1,000). It is submitted that inspite of repeated requests made by the Complainant to refund her amount deposited towards tuition fee, the Opposite Party has not refunded the amount and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
 

5) The Complainant has requested to direct Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs.53,700/- to the Complainant with interest @ 15% p.a. from 11/08/08 till realization of entire amount. The Complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lac towards mental agony, stress and Rs.7,500/- towards cost of this proceeding. Alongwith complaint the Complainant has filed her affidavit in support of the complaint and produced copies of document which consist of letter dtd.15/06/2010 sent to the Opposite Party, copy of letter dtd.09/09/2010 sent to the Opposite Party by Consumer Party of India, copy of information broacher issued by AMUPDMC, copy of two certificates issued by the Syndicate Bank by both dtd.22/10/2010, etc.
 

6) Opposite Party has filed written reply/written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending that present complaint is not maintainable because Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Opposite Party is not a service provider as defined under Sec.2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is submitted that present complaint is at the best a suit for recovery of money, remedy for which lies with Civil Court. The present complaint is not maintainable before Consumer Forum.
 

7) It is submitted that Opposite Party is only the Principal of the Bombay Hospital College of Nursing and there is no personal liability of Opposite Party. The College is run by Bombay Hospital Trust. The Trust is not joined as a party and therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is alleged that present complaint is vexatious and it is filed only with intention to pressurize Opposite Party.
 

8) It is submitted that the Bombay Hospital College of Nursing is a private unaided Nursing College run by the Bombay Hospital Trust, a Public Charitable Trust registered under provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Trust established the Bombay Nurses Training Institute in the year 1952. This institute was subsequently upgraded as Bombay Hospital College of Nursing in the year 2004. The College is a pioneering institute providing quality nursing education in the country. The College is recognized by the Indian Nursing Council, the Maharashtra Nursing Council and is affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. The College is a member of Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra (AMUPMDC) the AMUPMDC was established in 1994 and is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. AMUPMDC was formed inter alia to consider, deliberate and formulate guidelines for quality education in Medical and Dental field and to make recommendations regarding matters related to medical/dental education to various authorities and bodies. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation V/s. State of Karnataka has recognized the right of unaided private colleges to admit students by holding a Common Entrance Test (CET). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Review Petition No.120 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.6332 of 2005 permitted the AMUPMDC to conduct the CET for admissions to Medical, Dental and Health Science course in the State of Maharashtra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education V/s. State of Karnataka has held that ‘each State ought to constitute appropriate Committees to ensure that the admission process was fair and transparent. Accordingly, the State of Maharashtra has constituted Shikshan Shulka Samiti to decide/regulate education fees and Pravesh Niyantran Samiti to ensure that the admission process is fair and transparent.
 

9) According to the Opposite Party, every year the AMUPMDC issues an Information Brochure with interalia sets out the details of CET and the selection procedure to be followed. The brochure issued by AMUPMDC for the year 2008 set out the “Tentative Schedule” for refund of fees in case of cancellation of admission. This tentative schedule was approved by Pravesh Niyantran Samiti vide letter dtd.14/03/2007.
 

10) It is submitted that the Complainant purchased Information Brochure of AMUPMDC for the year 2008, completed the necessary formalities and appeared for CET held on 04/05/2008. Upon declaration of CET results, the Complainant qualified for the B.Sc. Nursing course conducted by the Opposite Party College. Then the Complainant approached Opposite Party for admission process. To enable the Complainant to familiarize herself with the college policies, the Complainant was provided a copy of College Brochure alongwith the Rules and Regulations. The Opposite Party has produced copy of College Brochure alongwith written statement at Exh.‘D’. It is admitted by Opposite Party that the Complainant submitted necessary document to the Opposite Party College and paid course fee of Rs.54,700/- vide Demand Draft dtd.01/08/2008. In the mean while, Maharashtra University of Health Science vide Notice dtd.16/09/2008 fixed cut-off date for B.Sc. Nursing Course as 30/09/2008. This information was uploaded on the website of AMUPMDC and was orally informed to all the students at the time of admission/counseling.
 

11) It is submitted that for the reasons best known to the Complainant, the Complainant cancelled her admission with the College on 30/09/2008. At the time of submitting cancellation form, the Complainant was informed by the Opposite Party that the cut-off date i.e. 30/09/08 having passed, the Complainant would not be entitled to any refund of fees. Despite this, the Complainant proceeded to cancel her admission with the College. The original documents submitted to the college at the time of admission were returned to the student alongwith security deposit of Rs.10,000/-.
 

12) It is submitted that Opposite Party addressed a letter to the AMUPMDC on 03/10/2008, requesting to confirm cut-off date for the B.Sc. Nursing Course for the year 2008. The AMUPMDC replied to the said letter on 23/10/2008, confirming that as per the instructions received from Indian Nursing Council, the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences had fixed cut-off date for the B.Sc. Nursing course at 30/09/2008. Therefore, according to the Opposite Party, the Complainant was not entitled to any refund of fees.
 

13) Opposite Party has denied allegations made in complaint submitting that on 30/09/2008, when Complainant submitted the cancellation form the Complainant was informed that she would not be entitled to any refund. It is further contended that assuming (whilst denying) that the Complainant is entitled to a refund of fees, the Complainant had issued demand draft in favour of the Trust and therefore, liability may be that of Trust and not of the Opposite Party. It is contended that there is no cause of action to this complaint and therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed. Alongwith written statement the Opposite Parties have submitted copies of papers as per list of documents at Exh. ‘A’ to ‘I’.
 

14) Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Miss. Thresiamma Sugathan, Principal of Bombay Hospital College of Nursing. The Complainant has filed written argument. Opposite Party has also filed written argument. The Complainant is not represented by any advocate or any representative of Consumer Welfare Association. Heard Complainant in person and Ld.Advocate Smt. N. Singh i/b. Adv. Bharucha & Partners for Opposite Party.
 

15) Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
 

      Point No.1 : Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party ?

      Point No.2 : Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed for ? 

      Findings    : As per final order.
 

Reasons :- 

Point No.1 :- Following facts are undisputed facts that Bombay Hospital College of Nursing is a private unaided Nursing College, run by the Bombay Hospital Trust. Mrs. Sugathan is a Principal of Bombay Hospital College of Nursing. Bombay Hospital College of Nursing is a member of Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra (AMUPMDC). The AMUPMDC was established in 1994 and it is registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. According to the Opposite Party, AMUPMDC was formed interalia to consider, deliberate and formulate guidelines for quality education in medical and dental field and to make recommendation regarding matters related to Medical/Dental education to various authorities and bodies. 
 

It is submitted on behalf of Opposite Party, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2002 in TMA Pai Foundation V/s. State of Karnataka recognized rights of unaided Colleges to admit students by holding a Common Entrance Test. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide its order dtd.10/08/06 passed in Revision Petition No.120 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.6332 of 2005 permitted AMUPMDC to conduct the CET for admission for Medical, Dental and Health Sciences in the State of Maharashtra. 

It is undisputed fact that in the year 2008, the Complainant passed CET conducted by AMUPMDC and was qualified of B.Sc. Nursing course conducted by Opposite Party College. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that when the Complainant approached Opposite Party College for admission in B.Sc. Nursing course that time to enable the Complainant to familiarize herself with the College policies, the Complainant was provided a copy of College Brochure alongwith the Rules and Regulations. The Opposite Party has produced copy of College Brochure alongwith written statement at Exh.‘D’ and Rules and Regulations of Bombay Hospital College of Nursing of Bombay Hospital Trust. It is submitted by the Complainant that at the time of admission it was informed to her that first year fees amounts to Rs.54,700/- was to be paid in single installment by Demand Draft in favour of College. This fact is not disputed by the Opposite Party. It appears that the Complainant is girl from middle class family. According to the Complainant, her parents collected loans from her relatives and friends and deposited amount of Rs.54,700/- by Demand Draft with Opposite Party College on 11/08/08. Opposite Party has admitted this fact of receipt first year college fees from the Complainant by D.D. 

It is to be noted that a student who avails services of a college or any educational institute on payment of fees is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. As per Sec.3 the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Hence, we hold that present Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and present complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

According to the Complainant, after depositing the fees with the Opposite Party, her financial condition took adverse turn and so she was constrained to withdraw from Nursing education and therefore, she approached College Authorities for cancellation of registration and for refund of annual fee of Rs.54,700/-. She had filled cancellation form provided by the Opposite Party and submitted to Opposite Party on 30/09/08. Aforesaid fact is also admitted by the Opposite Party. 

The Complainant has alleged in her complaint that at the time of cancellation of admission on 30/09/08, the Opposite Party assured her that within a weeks time refund of amount would be remitted by bank draft. However, inspite of passing several months no amount was refunded to her so she visited College and contacted Opposite Party and met Mrs. Lovrly James, Account Clerk, who assured that Complainant’s matter is being looked into very shortly and that Complainant will receive refund of amount claimed. It is submitted that inspite of repeated requests and letter send to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party has not refunded the amount. It is submitted by the Complainant that as per rules approved by Pravesh Niyantran Samiti vide letter No.PNS/Meeting/March/2007/122/ dtd.14/03/07, concerning refund of fees (Rule 17.3) only a maximum amount of Rs.1,000/- has to be deducted from the amount received and the balance amount has to be immediately refunded back to the student provided the application for withdrawal is submitted within the 20 days from the date of cut-off. The Complainant has referred the information brochure published by AMUPMDC and pointed out that in case of Nursing College cut-off date was prescribed as 31/10/08. She has submitted that before aforesaid cut-off date she had submitted her application for cancellation of admission on 30/09/08 so she is entitled to receive refund of Rs.53,700/-. 

Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that at the time of admission of the Complainant College Brochure and Rules and Regulations of the College were given to the Complainant. By referring to the rules and regulations framed by the Bombay College of Nursing, it is submitted that as per Rule No.17 “Course fees will be as approved by the Shikshan Shulka Samiti and refund of fees will be as per rules given by AMUPMDC. Students have to pay Rs.10,000/- as a Security deposit to the Bombay Hospital Trust. This will be returned without interest only on completion of required period of 2 years services as a Staff Nurse. It is submitted that in the instance case on the date of cancellation of admission by the Complainant i.e. on 30/09/08, Opposite Party has refunded security deposit of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant. As per Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party that as per Rule 17 of the Rules and Regulations framed by Bombay Hospital College of Nursing, refund of fees will be as per rules given by AMUPMDC. Ld.Advocate has referred to information brochure published by AMUPMDC and pointed out that after cut-off date i.e. after 4.00 p.m., student is not entitled to refund of any tuition fee. It is submitted that in Information Brochure published by AMUPMDC tentative cut-off date mentioned as 30/10/08. Subsequently, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences vide notification dtd.16/09/08 finalize cut-off date for Nursing course as 30/09/08. In support of her contention, Ld.Advocate has referred the notification dtd.16/09/08 issued by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, copies of which is produced at Exh.‘E’ annexed to the written statement. In the said notification Maharashtra University of Health Sciences has fixed cut-off date for basic B.Sc. Nursing course as 30/09/08 with directions that admission process is to be completed upto 30/09/2008 and therefore, as per AMUPMDC Rules, the Complainant is not entitled to claim any refund. 

Association of Managements of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra (AMUPMDC) was established in 1994 and is registered under the Societies Act, 1860. Even according to the Opposite Party, the AMUPMDC was formed interalia to consider, deliberate and formulate guidelines for quality education in Medical and Dental field and to make recommendation regarding matter of Medical/Dental education to various authorities and bodies. AMUPMDC is an Organization of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges which is registered as a Society under the Societies Act, 1860, can issue guidelines for quality education to its college members. Rules framed by AMUPMDC has no statutory force of law and on the basis of aforesaid rules, Opposite Party cannot deny refund of fees contending that admission was cancelled on cut-off date. Rules & Regulations framed by Bombay Hospital College of Nursing are for proper management and administration. Opposite Party has produced Regulation No.USG2003 (85/03)/PS-4/dated 24/09/2003 issued by State of Maharashtra and thereby State of Maharashtra has constituted Shikshan Shulka Samiti to decide/regulate education fee at the Pravesh Niyantran Samity to ensure that admission process was fair and transparent. 

It is submitted by the Complainant that her financial condition became difficult, so she was constrained to withdraw from Nursing education and she approached College authorities to cancel her registration and refund annual fees amounting to Rs.54,700/-. The Complainant has further stated that on 30/09/08, at the time of cancellation of her admission it was assured by the Opposite Party that within a weeks of time refund amount will be remitted by bank draft. It is further submitted that even passing of period of more than months there was no refund of amount. So she approached College and contacted Opposite Party and met Mrs. Loverly James, Account Clerk, who assured her that her matter being looked into very shortly and she will be receive back refund of amount claimed by her. On the contrary, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that as Complainant has submitted her application for cancellation after cut-off date of passed on 30/09/08, so it was specifically informed her that she was not entitled to refund fees deposited by her. In support of her contention, Ld.Advocate has relied upon affidavit of Miss. T. Sugathan, Principal of Bombay Hospital. Principal of Bombay Hospital as stated in her affidavit that on 30/09/08, when the Complainant met her she informed the Complainant that cut-off date i.e. 30/09/2008 have been passed, the Complainant would not be entitled to any refund of fees. The Complainant has denied the aforesaid allegations and submitted that Principal, Miss. T. Sugathan on 30/09/08 was not sure about cut-off date and the allegations made by the Principal that she had informed her that she would not be entitled to any refund of fees are false. In support of her contention, the Complainant has relied upon the copy of letter dtd.03/10/08 send by Miss. T. Sugathan, Principal to the AMUPMDC. Copy of aforesaid letter is produced by the Opposite Party alongwith written statement at Exh.‘G’. In the above said letter, Principal informed the Competent Authority of AMUPMDC that there are ‘6’ cancellation of admission from First Year B.Sc. Nursing course, 2008. In the letter of Principal- Miss. Sugathan has further stated that

refunded when cancellation,  

1.Date of cancellation – 16/09/2008. 

2.Date of cancellation – 27/09/2008. 

3.Date of cancellation – 30/09/2008
 

Kindly consider as urgent and give the amount for refund for these cancellations as our students are awaiting an early reply.  

Thanking you,”
 

It is clear form the contents of the letter that it was not certain about refund of fees and she was confused. Therefore, she sought guidelines from AMUPMDC. Considering Miss. T. Sugathan’s aforesaid letter dated 03/10/2008 addressed to the MAUPMDC, her statement in the affidavit that on 30/09/2008, she informed the Complainant that cut-off date being passed the Complainant would not be entitled to refund of fees appears to be doubtful and unsafe to rely.
 

      Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that as the application was submitted on cut-off date prescribed by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, subsequently prescribed cut-off date as 30/09/08 is binding. As mentioned above AMUPMDC in its Information Brochure as stated cut-off date is 31/10/08. According to the Opposite Party, it was tentative date. It is to be noted that the Opposite Party in written reply/written statement para no.2G it is stated “Information Brochure issued by the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti vide letter No.PNS/Meeting/March/2007/122/dated 14/03/2007. Submissions made by Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party regarding cut-off date are inconsistence with the averments made in written statement para No.2G of the Opposite Party. Further, it is not disclosed that when the Opposite Party came to know about the cut-off date prescribed by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. It is to be noted that in the reply/written statement the Opposite Party has submitted that information regarding cut-off date was uploaded on the web site of AMUPMDC and it was disclosed to the students at the time of admission. The Complainant has denied the aforesaid allegations. It was possible for the Opposite Party College to display information of cut-off date at least on the notice board. At the time of argument, the Complainant has submitted that she had submitted application for cancellation of 30/09/08 in the morning and not after 4.00 p.m. as alleged by the Opposite Party. It is submitted by the Complainant that her application in writing of cancellation of admission if it was filed after cut-off date i.e. after 4.00 p.m. of 30/09/08 as alleged by the Opposite Party then in that case in routine course such endorsement might have been made on the application concern clerk or officer of Opposite Party. However, to support their contention the Opposite Party has not produced application form submitted by the Complainant for cancellation of her admission. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has vehemently submitted that after cut-off date, the Complainant is not entitled for any refund of fees. Cut-off date prescribed by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, was for admission of student in the College for B.Sc. Nursing Course and not for refund of fees. The Complainant in her complaint has relied upon the rules framed by the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti vide letter No.PNS/Meeing/March/2007/122/dated14/03/07 and submitted that as per Rule 17.3 maximum amount of Rs.1,000/- has to be deducted from the amount received and balance has to be immediately refunded to the student. The Complainant has not produced aforesaid letter of Pravesh Niyantran Samiti. The Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered judgement in the mater of Islamic Academy of Education & Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka & Ors., on 14/08/03 and the State Government constituted the Shikshan Shulka Samiti as per the Resolution dtd.23/09/2003. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed and the Committee was constituted to check profiteering and acceptance of capitation fees by private unaided educational institute. Shikshan Shulka Samiti on 24/08/2007 has issued office order as follow - 
 

शिक्षणशुल्‍क समिती
 

305, शासकीय तंत्र निकेतन इमारत,
 

49, खेरवाडी, अली नायर जंग मार्ग, वांद्रे, (पूर्व), मुंबई – 400 051.
 

दुरध्‍वनी क्रं.2647 6034/2647 6037 
 

क्र.शिशुस/फी-परतावा/2007/698 24 ऑगस्‍ट 2007 

कार्यालयीन आदेश
 

शिक्षण शुल्‍क समितीच्‍या (उच्‍च व तंत्र शिक्षण) दिनांक 11 मे 2007 रोजी झालेल्‍या बैठकीत व शिक्षण शुल्‍क समिती (वैद्यकीय शिक्षण) च्‍या दिनांक 6 जून 2007 रोजी झालेल्‍या बैठकीत पुढीलप्रमाणे निर्णय घेण्‍यात आला आहेः-
 

2. विद्यार्थ्‍याने एखाद्या संस्‍थेत घेतलेला प्रवेश काही कारणान्‍वये रद्द केल्‍यास व संस्‍थेने सदर जागा दुस-या विद्यार्थ्‍यास प्रवेश देवून भरल्‍यास अशा प्रकरणामध्‍ये प्रवेश रद्द केलेल्‍या विद्यार्थ्‍याकडून घेतलेली सर्व फी, रु.1,000/- इतकी रक्‍कम संस्‍करण शुल्‍क म्‍हणून ठेवून बाकीची फी त्‍यांना परत करावी तसेच त्‍या कॉलेज/संस्‍था यांनी त्‍या विद्यर्थ्‍याकडून घेतलेली सर्व प्रमाणपत्रे तात्‍काळ परत करावीत.

 

3. वरील निर्णयानुसार उच्‍च व तंत्र शिक्षण विभाग तसेच वैद्यकीय शिक्षण विभागाअंतर्गत येणारी सर्व महाविद्यालये व संस्‍था यांना असे निर्देश देण्‍यात येत आहेत की, सन 2006-07 या शैक्षणिक वर्षापासून समितीच्‍या उक्‍त निर्णयाची अंमलबजावणी काटेकोरपणे करावी.
 

मा.अध्‍यक्ष, शिक्षण शुल्‍क समिती यांच्‍या आदेशान्‍वये,
 

(सदाशिव कांबळे)

कार्यालयीन सचिव

1. सर्व विना-अनुदानित अभियांत्रिकी फार्मसी,
 

     आर्किटेक्‍चर पदविका/पदवी महाविद्यालये.
 

2. सर्व विना-अनुदानित वैद्यकीय, दंत-वैद्यकीय,भौतिकोपचार महाविद्यालये.
 

3. संचालक, तंत्रशिक्षण, महाराष्‍ट्र राज्‍य, मुंबई 400 001.
 

4. संचालक, वैद्यकीय शिक्षण व संशोधन, महाराष्‍ट्र राज्‍य, मुंबई.
 

5. प्रधान सचिव, वैद्यकीय शिक्षण व औषधी द्रव्‍ये विभाग,
 

    मंत्रालय, मुंबई 400 032.
 

6. प्रधान सचिव, उच्‍च व तंत्र शिक्षण विभाग, मंत्रालय, मुंबई 400 032.
 

7. महासंचालक, माहिती व जनसंपर्क, मंत्रालय, मुंबई 400 032.

 

      In the Information Brochure of AMUPMDC produced by the Opposite Party paragraph no.17.4 is as under –
 

      ‘As per decision taken by the Shikshan Shulka Samiti that if a seat is filled-in and there is no vacant seat remain to be filled-in by the College/Institute in such a case the College/Institute should deduct only up to Rs.1,000/- and balance amount of fees paid by a student should be refunded. The Samiti further directs that the College/Institute should also return the original documents such as Mark List, Leaving Certificate etc. collected from the Student.’
 

     Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that in this case Bombay Hospital Nursing College has not given admission to other student in place of applicant and thereby the seat remained vacant and the Opposite Party has suffered loss. Human Resource Development and University Grant Commission (UGC) has issued instruction to all the Institutions and Universities that they are required to maintain a waiting list of student/candidate in the event of student/candidate withdrawing before starting all course, wait listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. The Opposite Party has not adduced any evidence to show that whether they had maintained waiting list of students. Further, there is no documentary evidence to show that on cut-off date i.e. 30/09/08, Opposite Party has not given admission to any candidate.
 

     It is to be noted that in this case Opposite Party has not stated about sanctioned IN-TAKE capacity of their B.Sc. Nursing course. Further, they have not stated anything about number of seats remained vacant due to the cancellation of admission by the student on or before cut-off date. Aforesaid documentary evidence was available with the Opposite Party but Opposite Party has not produced available documentary evidence to support their contention that due to cancellation of admission by the Complainant, the Opposite Party has suffered loss as student remained in the class were less than the sanctioned strength. Therefore, for want of reliable documentary evidence, we do not find substance in the allegation made by the Opposite Party that they have suffered loss due to the cancellation of admission by the Complainant. In view of the aforesaid order of Shikshan Shulka Samiti dtd.24/08/07, the Complainant is entitled of Rs.53,700/- after deducting Rs.1,000/- form the total fees deposited. Considering aforesaid facts, it appears that the Opposite Party on unjustified ground refused to refund fees deposited by the Complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. So we answer point no.1 in the affirmative.
 

Point No.2 :- As discussed above, the Complainant is entitled to refund amount of Rs.53,700/- towards College fees paid by her to Opposite Party. Therefore, we directed Opposite Party to pay Rs.53,700/- to the Complainant. 
 

The Complainant has prayed for interest @ 15% p.a. on aforesaid amount from 11/08/08 i.e. form the date of payment made to the Opposite Party till realization of the amount. The Complainant has claimed interest at excessive rate. We think it just to direct Opposite Party to pay interest @ 9% p.a. form 30/09/08 till realization of entire amount to the Complainant. 

The Complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, stress and anxiety. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that compensation claimed by the Complainant is exorbitant. We have already allowed interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.53,700/- so we think it just to direct Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony, stress and anxiety.  

The Complainant has claimed Rs.7,500/- towards cost of this proceeding. Considering the nature of this proceeding, we think it just to direct Opposite Party to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of this proceeding to the Complainant. Hence, we answer point no.2 accordingly.  

For the reason discussed above partly allowed the complaint and pass the following order –
 

O R D E R
 

i. Complaint No.269/2010 is partly allowed. 
 

   Complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from 30/09/2008 till realization of entire amount to the Complainant. 
 

    and anxiety and Rs.2,000/-(Rs. Two Thousand Only) towards cost of this proceedings to the Complainant. 
 

iv.Opposite Party is directed to comply the aforesaid order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.