BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Roshina Kalra, R/o H.No.106-107,Ekta Vihar, Ambala Cantt.

…..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

S.D.College through its Principal Sh.A.C.Vaid, Sector 32, Chandigarh.

                                        ……Opposite Party

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

Argued by:        Sh.Vikas Sharma, Adv. for complainant

Sh.Sudhir Theari,Adv. for the OP

PER SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

               Succinctly put, the complainant took in to admission in M.Sc. (Bio.Tech.) in OP College on 10.7.2008 and deposited a sum of Rs.36,970/- as fee of the college. However, on her selection in Thapar University, Patiala on 26.7.2008, she preferred to join that institute and therefore, deposited necessary fee with Thapar University, Patiala on that very date.  Thereafter, the complainant visited OP College and requested them vide letter dated 30.7.2008 to refund her fee.  She wrote to the OP College that since she had not attended any of their classes and as such has not availed their services, so her fee of Rs.36,970/- should be refunded, but all in vain. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed alleging the act of OP College as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant had to suffer mentally, physically and financially.

2]             OP filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It is stated that the OP College has nothing to do if the complainant had applied for the admission in Thapar University, Paiala.  It is denied that the complainant applied for refund of the fees vide letter dated 30.7.2008. However, the OP College for the first time received the legal notice dated 20.4.2009 for the refund of fee and other dues, which was duly replied.  It was pleaded that the Complainant took admission of her own accord and also left the course of her own.  The OP college received the letter for refund of her admission fee and surrender of her seat after the normal date of admission and it was made clear to her that the fee and other dues paid by the candidate for getting the admission, would not be refunded in case the student chooses to withdraw from the course. It was denied that all the seats for M.Sc Bio-Technology 1st year Course were filled up as alleged. It is stated that the seats for M.Sc. Bio-Technology Ist Year Course were enhanced from 20 to 30 by the Panjab University, Chandigarh vide their letter dated 9.7.2008 and one seat for the said course was made reserved for Kashmiri Displaced persons vide P.U. letter dated 13.6.2008 and as such there were 31 seats for the course of M.Sc. Bio.Tech.  It is submitted that the seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant throughout the year as only 26 seats were filled for the said course for the academic sessions 2008-09 and as per the guidelines of UGC the complainant was not entitled for the refund of fee and other dues. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, and therefore the complaint be dismissed.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5]             The basic facts of the case in respect of the complainant having taken admission in M.Sc. (Bio.Tech.) course at OP College on 10.7.2008 and having deposited a sum of Rs.36,970/- as the fee of the College and that subsequently she left the course to join another course at Thapar University, Patiala on 26.7.2008 have all been established. 

6]             The case of the complainant is that immediately after leaving the course at OP College, she applied for the refund of the fee on 30.7.2008, stating that since she has not attended any class at the OP’s College and thus not availed any services, and as such, she is entitled to receive the refund of Rs.36,970/- i.e. the entire course fee paid by her to the OP.

7]             The OP in its reply while admitting the basic facts of the case, stated that it had nothing to do with the complainant’s taking admission in some other college and also that she had never applied for refund of fee on 30.7.2008. 

8]             There are two more letters enclosed by the complainant as Ann.C-5 & C-6 in which the complainant claims to have sent to the OP a registered A.D. letter on 22.12.2008 followed by reminder on 10.1.2009 seeking refund of her fee from the OP.  The receipt of both these letters has been denied by the OP.  The complainant has also not placed on record any document or proof showing either the dispatch of these letters by her or receipt of the same by the OP.  As per the OP, the only communication which they received from the complainant in respect of withdrawal of her candidature and request for the refund of fee is the legal notice dated 20.4.2009 sent by the complainant through her counsel asking for the refund of the entire fee along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as compensation for the delayed payment of the said amount to her.

9]             The present case was filed by the complainant on 3.12.2009.

10]            The complainant in support of her case has cited two authorities. One is of Sh.Atam Parkash Khatter & Anr. Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana & Others, Civil Writ Petition No.13308 of 2009, decided on 21^st July, 2010 wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana had allowed the refund of full fee of Rs.61,000/- along with interest @18% p.a. from the date it was deposited to the date of the payment. Second is the case of The Registrar, Andhra University Vishakhapatham & Anr. Vs. Janjanam Jagedeesh, R.P. No.3926 of 2009, decided on 6^th July, 2010.  In this case the Hon’ble National Commission has observed that the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and University Grants Commission (UGC) had considered the issue in detail and have laid guidelines which are to be abided by the Universities and Institutions in respect of the refund of fee to the student on their leaving the course.  The said guidelines are quoted below:-

“….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 candidate 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…..”

In the above guidelines, it is clearly stated that in case of seat vacated by the candidate is filled from the list of wait-listed candidates, the entire fee collected from the student after a deduction of processing fee of not more than 1000/- shall be refunded and returned by the institution/university to the student.

11]            In the present case, the seat left vacant by the complainant has not been filled for full one year, therefore, the UGC guidelines shall not be of much help to the complainant in support of her case.       

12]            In support of his case, the ld.Counsel for the OP has cited a large number of authorities, some of which are as under:-

i)         Sonika Sharma vs. Dashmesh Girls College and Anr., 2010(1) CPC 559 (NCDRC), dated 29.1.2010 wherein it has been held that Refund of fee – A sum of Rs.40,000/- was deposited by the respondent/complainant with appellant/OP for 3^rd and 4^th semester of MCA course – But later on, complainant got admission in some other college and claim refund of deposited fee – District Forum allowed complaint directing OP to refund Rs.40,000/- with compensation of Rs.5000/-- But order was set aside – It is clearly mentioned in the college prospectus that fee once paid would not be refunded – Complainant is bound by Rules and Regulations of the University which does not permit refund of fee of student voluntarily leaving the college. 

ii)        Ramdeobaba Engineering College Vs. Sushant Yuvraj Rode &Anr., III(1994) CPJ 160 (NC) wherein it has been held that : This is a case where there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering College.  The respondent complainant Shri Rode withdrew from the College to join another institute voluntarily and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering College Non-refund of admission fee is not a deficiency in service.  Admission fee is a consideration for admission and the service which the Engineering College was to render to the student in the matter of his pursuing studies in the college after admission. It is a quid pro quo for such service.

iii)       Jasleen Kaur Vs. The Managing Director, A.K.Vidhya Mandir Pvt. Ltd.,  2006(1) CPC 166 (CHD.SCDRC)  wherein it has been held that Tuition fee – Appellant/Complainant approached respondent for getting coaching for PMT classes and deposited a sum of rs.15,700/- as tuition fee and hostel fee – complainant demanded refund of this amount with the allegation that faculty members of the institution were not duly qualified – Contention was found without merit – The appellant had left the course voluntarily after attending the course for 3 days – Her second contention that she was an average student was also not proved – Refund of fee was rightly disallowed by authority below.     

iv)      International Institute of Information and Technology &Ors. Vs. Sumer Singh, I(2004) CPJ (CHD.SCDRC) wherein it has been held that Refund of fee – Complainant succeeded in seeking admission in other college – Claimed refund – Fees not liable to be refunded as per brochure – Terms and conditions of brochure binding on candidates and Institute – Complaint wrongly allowed by forum – Order set aside in appeal.

v)       Ms.Swati Aneja Vs.Dev Samaj College for Women & Anr., 2002(2) CPC 497 (CHD. SCDRC) wherein it has been held that Refund of fee – the appellant deposited total fees of Rs.18,030/- for the admission to the BCA Ist year run by respondent – The appellant later on withdrew from the college voluntarily, due to personal exigencies of her family and asked for refund of fees deposited by her – The refund was declined by OP as per the norms laid down by the Panjab University – Consequently, the said complaint was filed – District Forum relying on 1995(1)CPC 184 N.C. dismissed the complaint in limine on the ground that the complainant had withdrawn herself from the college voluntarily and the respondent was not guilty of rendering any deficient service – it is found that there was no deficiency on the part of respondent – Appellant if so advised, may approach the civil court.  

From the above authorities quoted by the OP, it is quite clear that the complainant had left the seat in M.Sc. (Bio.Tech.) Course at the OP College totally voluntarily and at her own, keeping in view her better prospects in another educational institution of her choice.  The above said judgments clearly support the case of the OP showing that the complainant is not entitled to refund of any fee paid by her to the OP College earlier.

13]            In addition to the above said authorities, the OP has also laid focus on two more points, the one that the complainant has not informed them about her leaving the course for about 9 months i.e. from 26.7.2008to 20.4.2009.  As per the OP, the first time they received information in respect of the complainant’s withdrawing from the course was only on 20.4.2009 when they received a legal notice from the counsel of the complainant asking for the refund of the fee along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment.  Not even once before this date, the OP received any communication or letter in respect of either the complainant leaving the course or making a request for the refund of the fee.  The documents on record clearly prove and establish the contention of the OP in this respect.  The second point made by the OP in respect of its case is that the total number of seats in the course after an increase in seats as communicated by the Panjab University was 31 whereas till the end of the session the number of filled seats was only 26, which shows and proves that 5 seats remained vacant throughout the year i.e. till the end of the entire session and the same could not be filled as the complainant had not informed the OP College well in time about her intention to leave the course and also seeking refund of the fee and in the meantime the last date for admission at the OP college had expired and thereafter there could be no admission any further.

14]            The complainant has not been able to prove her case both in respect of the exact date on which she left the M.Sc. (Bio.Tech.) course at the OP College as also the date on which she made a formal request to the OP College for refund of fee.  The only document on record relied upon by both the complainant as also the OP is the legal notice dated 20.4.2009, which is clearly the first communication sent by the complainant to the OP 9 months after her alleged leaving the course at the OP College. 

15]            It is also proved beyond any doubt that the seat vacated by the complainant at OP College remained vacant for full one year and the same vacant seat in 1st year obviously was carried over to the second year also as normally there are no direct admissions to the second year of the course, this being a two year integrated course.

16]            Keeping in view the above detailed analysis of the case, in our considered opinion, the complainant has no case for the refund of fee from the OP College as she herself has been at fault in not intimating the OP College about her intention to leave the course well in time and also not seeking refund of the fees paid by her to the OP immediately after leaving the course.  Clearly there has not only been an abnormal and unreasonable delay on the part of the complainant in not informing the OP College about her leaving the course but also seeking the refund of the fee from them.  The complainant has not been able to pin point or prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP College.  Therefore, the entire case of the complainant falls flat.  We do not find any weight, merit and substance in the case of the complainant, which deserves rejection. We therefore, dismiss the complainant.  However, the respective parties shall be left to bear their own costs.

17]                 Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. The file be consigned.      

Announced

2^nd Aug., 2010                                

                                                                        Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                Sd/-

                                                (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                   Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA]

MEMBER

“Om”