Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1161/2014

RISHABH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NETA SUBHAS INSTITUTE - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 1161/14

 

Shri Rishabh Gupta

S/o Shri Davinder Gupta

R/o A-72, Hans Apartments

Near Karkardooma Courts

Delhi – 110 032                                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology

Through its Chairman, B.E. Admission Committee

University of Delhi, Azad Hind Fauz Marg

Sector-3, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 078                                ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 21.01.2015

Judgment Reserved for : 10.07.2017

Judgment Passed on : 18.07.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by Shri Rishabh Gupta, the complainant against Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.         Facts in brief are that the complainant got himself registered for online counselling by paying Rs. 1,000/-.  The complainant was admitted to B.E. programme 2014-15 provisionally vide JEE (Main) Roll No. 14522338, JEE Main Rank 7923 state rank 572 for which Rs. 83,250/- were paid, vide receipt no. 185 dated 17.07.2014.  It is stated that the complainant applied for withdrawal of the provisional admission on 02.08.2014 as he was not offered stream of his choice.  On 21.10.2014, OP refunded Rs. 73,250/- to the complainant after deduction of Rs. 10,000/-. 

            It has been stated by the complainant that the deduction of                  Rs. 10,000/- was arbitrary and unfair, which was contradictory to the guidelines issued by UGC.   Legal notice dated 02.11.2014, demanding refund of Rs. 10,000/- was neither replied nor complied with.  Hence, the present complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with prayer for direction to OP to pay Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit i.e. 17.07.2014, Rs. 5,500/- as expenses for legal notice, compensation and cost of litigation. 

            The complainant has annexed Brochure of OP, online registration confirmation of provisional admission dated 17.07.2014, fee receipt dated 17.07.2014, cheque issued by the complainant for Rs. 83,250/-, copy for the cheque issued by OP in lieu of refund of fees and schedule of admission alongwith terms and conditions, with the complaint. 

3.        Reply was filed by OP, where they took the plea that the complaint was not maintainable as OP was an autonomous institute, fully funded by Govt. of NCT of Delhi and affiliated to University of Delhi.  Further, they referred to clause 4.2 of the terms and conditions.

            It was also stated that as per terms and condition, the refund was to be made only after 31.10.2014 and as the complainant had given the undertaking, he was bound by the same.  It was stated that the complainant had applied for withdrawal of provisional admission on 04.08.2014 and not on 02.08.2014.  Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied.  Thus, the OP has stated that they have acted in accordance with the terms and conditions, thus, no deficiency in services could be attributed to them and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.         The complainant, in his rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of OP, denied all the contents of the WS and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.  It was stated that as per RTI No. F.220(22)/Acad./RTI/2013/NSIT dated 18.11.2014, OP had not refunded the provisional admission fee of 827 students.

5.         Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant as well as OP.  The complainant examined Shri Rishabh Gupta, the complainant himself.  The contents of the complaint were reaffirmed, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of OP. 

            Shri Rajesh Chauhan, Deputy Registrar was examined on behalf of OP, who stated on oath the contents of their reply.  He also relied on Cancellation of admission and refund rules in the Brochure (Ex.RW1), copy of confirmation of provisional admission (Ex.RW2), form for withdrawal of admission (Ex.RW3), copy of refund letter (Ex.RW4) and copy of the details of refund made for the year 2014-15 (Ex.RW5).

6.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant having alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by OP on the ground that OP has flouted the guidelines issued by UGC by deducting Rs. 10,000/- instead of
Rs. 1,000/-.  The complainant has annexed the terms and conditions and OP as well has relied on them and have exhibited the same as Ex.RW-1.  Clause 4 of Ex.RW-1 deals with ‘withdrawal, cancellation and refund’.  Relevant portion is being reproduced as follows:-

“In view of the direction dated 31.10.2011 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. NO. 829 of 2011 in Shri Nitul Datt Vs. Chairman, B.E. Admission Committee – 2011 & Ors., the process of cancellation of admission/withdrawal from NSIT are being streamlined as follows:

4.1      Cancellation of Admission & Refund -

4.2      Withdrawal and Refund

(a)	Withdrawal upto 31.07.2014	Rs. 5,000/- will be deducted
(b)	Withdrawal from 01.08.2014 to 05.08.2014	Rs. 10,000/- will be deducted
(c)	Withdrawal from 06.08.2014 to 12.08.2014	Rs. 20,000/- will be deducted
(d)	Withdrawal after 12.08.2014 / cancellation of admissions	Refundable security deposit of               Rs. 5,000/- only will be refunded.

            On the other hand, the complainant has also filed guidelines dated 23.04.2007 issued by UGC, where the entire fee collected from the student after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1,000/-, was to be refunded and returned by the institution/university to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme.      

            It is clear that OP has acted in accordance with the directions issued by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which is clearly mentioned in terms and conditions under Clause 4.  As, OP has acted in compliance of the directions issued, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed.  As, the complainant was aware of terms and conditions, and by giving an undertaking was bound by same, now, he cannot challenge the same. 

            Thus, we find no deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost.

           Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                  (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

           

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

President