Sri Jagadish Chandra Barman, MEMBER
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows:
This is a complaint case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per statement, the opposite party advertised about admission in B-Tech Civil Engineering course in the Netaji Subhash Enginering College and the complainant contacted with the O. P. Thereafter, the petitioner decided to take admission in the stream Civil Engineering in the Netaji Subhash Enginering College, Techno City, [NSEC] for the session 2017-18 before holding counselling.
Hence, the complainant paid on 11/7/2017 Rs. 2,22,000=00 only to the opposite party through 3 bank drafts of the Indian Bank of Agartala Branch vide drafts no- 552624 of Rs. 36,250.00 only, no- 552625 of Rs. 36,000=00 only and no 552626 of Rs. 1,50,000=00 only. The opposite party also issued 2 payment receipts Vide Sl. No-MR/109/17/000779 Dated 30/6/2017, course-3rd semester, Rs. 36,250.00 only and another MR/109/17/000779 Dated 30/6/2017 Enrolment Id. EN/109/17/BTECH-LAT/CIVIL/002, Rs. 36,000=00 only. As per statement, the O.P. did not issue any receipt of Rs. 1, 50,000=00 only though the complainant demanded receipt for the same several times.
Fortunately, the complainant got a seat as a successful candidate in joint entrance examination held in Tripura. Hence, he took admission in the stream B-Tech Civil Engineering in the Tripura Engineering College [TIT], Narsingarh, Agartala.
Thereafter, before counselling, Sri Pradip Kr. Das, father of the complainant requested the Managing Director of the O.P. by writing a letter dated 8.8.2017 to cancel his son Rohit Das’s admission due to some unavoidable circumstances occurred at his home.
Without getting any reply, father of the complainant wrote another letter on 17/10/2017 to the Principal of the O.P. to refund the paid amount soon. The complainant and his father requested several times over telephone to the O. P. and the O.P. every time assured them to refund the paid amount. As per statement, the complainant did not get back his paid amount even after expiry of 23 months.
To support refund of deposited and paid money, the complainant has mentioned one Order Vide no-14-4/2007-U,3[A] , Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education,[U. 3 [A] Section].It is stated there as, “In exercise of the powers conferred in it by Section 20[1] of the University Grants Commission Act and Section 20[1] of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, The Central Government hereby directs the UGC and the AICTE to instruct Institutions and Universities in the public interest to maintain a waitlist of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the waitlisted candidates should be given admissions against the vacant seat. The entire fees collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1000=00 only shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student / candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to retain the school / Institution Leaving Certificate in original. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant gets filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the Institution must return the fees collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.”
Accordingly, PUBLIC NOTICE, ADVT. No AICTE/Legal /04[01]/2007 has been circulated and instructed by the Member Secretary [Dr. K. Narayan Rao] to technical Institutions, Universities including Deemed to be Universities imparting Technical Education regarding matters concerning charging of fees, refund of fees and other student related issues.
In the last paragraph of the Notice, it is clearly stated as,” Any violation of instructions issued, by the UGC, and the AICTE, shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition of erring institutions and Universities. The UGC and the AICTE shall on their own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions”.
The opposite party did not response to the letters sent by the father of the complainant and did not refund any amount paid by the complainant.
Thereafter, complainant became very much aggrieved and filed this instant case before this Ld. Commission for proper adjudication in time. The complainant in this instant case has prayed for following relieves:
- To issue an order to the O. P. to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 2,22,250.00 – Rs. 1000.00 = Rs. 2,21,250.00 only with interest.
- To issue an order to the O. P. to pay compensation amount Rs. 10,00,000/- only for mental pain, harassment and unfair trade practices
- To issue an order to the O. P. to pay litigation cost .......not mentioned.
- To issue an order to the O. P. as the Ld. Commission may deem fit and proper.
Ergo, as per procedure followed by this Ld. Commission, show cause notices were served satisfactorily and the O.P. appeared before this Ld. Commission on 9.9.2019 and filed written version.
In the W. V., the O. P. has pointed out that this instant case is not maintainable in the DCDRC. The O. P. has also expressed that this case is barred by the law of limitation. But the O. P. admitted that the complainant took admission on 30/6/2017 in the NSEC for the academic session 2017-18. It is also stated in the written version that the complainant informed the institution that he did not want to continue his course in the NSEC but to cancel his admission.
As per W. V., the admitted seat of the complainant was not filled up by any other candidate and was remained vacant for the session 2017-18. It is also clearly stated in the w. v. that the Institution had not taken any security amount from the complainant and as such the Institution was not liable to refund any amount as the seat was vacant throughout the session.
The O. P. also denied that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Hence, the O.P. had denied to pay any compensation amount and litigation cost.
The opposite party also stated that the Hon`ble Supreme Court has held that Education is not commodity and Educational Institutions are not providing any kind of service. Therefore, there cannot be a question of deficiency in service relating to admission, fees etc.
Upon the averments of the complaint petition, the following points are formulated:-
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
1]. Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Is the O. P. guilty of deficiency of services, negligence and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant?
3] Is the complainant entitled to get relief /relieves as prayed for?
EVIDENCES OF THE COMPLAINANT/O.P.
The complainant as well as O.P both filed evidences on affidavit on 5/11/2019 .The Complainant and the O. P. both filed brief notes of arguments on 7th day of January 2020.
DECICIONS WITH REASONS.
Point no. 1, 2, & 3.
The complainant paid hard earned money of his father on 11/7/2017 Rs. 2,22,000=00 only to the opposite party through 3 bank drafts of the Indian Bank of Agartala Branch vide drafts no- 552624 of Rs. 36,250.00 only, no- 552625 of
Rs. 36,000=00 only and no 552626 of Rs. 1,50,000=00 only. The opposite party also issued 2 payment receipts Vide Sl. No-MR/109/17/000779 Dated 30/6/2017, course-3rd semester, Rs. 36,250.00 only and another MR/109/17/000779 Dated 30/6/2017 Enrolment Id. EN/109/17/BTECH-LAT/CIVIL/002, Rs. 36,000=00 only. As per statement, the O.P. did not issue any receipt of Rs. 1, 50,000=00 only though the complainant demanded a receipt for the same several times. The O.P. also did not deny it.
Therefore, there is no doubt that complainant is certainly a `CONSUMER` under Section 2[d] of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, not a student.
[Explanation:
It is very much worthy to mention the definition of a student as,``a person engaged in study, one who is devoted to learning; a learner, a pupil, a scholar, especially who attends a school, or who seeks knowledge from professional teachers or from books ; as the student of an academy, a college or a university, a medical student; a hard student.”.
If we analyse here about the fact and circumstances, we find that the complainant took admission only in NSEC in advanced period on 11/7/2017 and before counselling, the complainant also informed the authority by sending a letter through his father dated 8.8.2017 that the complainant was not willing to continue his course there as the complainant got a seat as a successful candidate in joint entrance examination held in Tripura. Hence, he took admission in the stream B-Tech Civil Engineering in the Tripura Engineering College [TIT], Narsingarh, Agartala. Therefore, the complainant is a student of the Tripura Engineering College [TIT], Narsingarh, Agartala, not a student of NSEC; because he neither attended any class of the NSEC nor did he block a seat. After receiving the letter of the guardian/father of the complainant, the NSEC had had sufficient time to fill up the vacant seat of the complainant.
Ergo, the complainant is not responsible for a vacant a seat in the stream Civil Engineering in the Netaji Subhash Enginering College, Techno City, [NSEC] for the session 2017-18.
It is common phenomenon, now we observe, that some seats are remained vacant/ non-filled in almost all Engineering Colleges in West Bengal as the nos. of seats are more than the nos. of willing students who take admission in Engineering Colleges].
In relation to the point for determination no 2 ‘’Is the O. P. guilty of deficiency of services, negligence and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant?”, and point for determination no 3 “ Is the complainant entitled to get relief /relieves as prayed for? ”It is relevant to say that in this instant case, the complainant paid hard earned money of his father on 11/7/2017 Rs. 2,22,000=00 only to the opposite party through 3 bank drafts of the Indian Bank of Agartala Branch vide drafts no- 552624 of Rs. 36,250.00 only, no- 552625 of Rs. 36,000=00 only and no 552626 of Rs. 1,50,000=00 only.
Before counselling, Sri Pradip Kr. Das, father of the complainant, requested the Managing Director of the O.P. by writing a letter dated 8.8.2017 to cancel his son`s[Rohit Das ] admission.
Without getting any reply, father of the complainant wrote another letter on 17/10/2017 to the Principal of the O.P. to refund the paid amount soon. The complainant and his father requested several times over telephone to the O. P. to refund paid amount, but the O.P. did not pay any heed to the anxiety, tension, harassment of the complainant.
It is pertinent to mention the guide lines issued by the one Order Vide no-14-4/2007-U,3[A] , Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education,[U. 3 [A] Section].It is stated there as, “in exercise of the powers conferred in it by Section 20[1] of the University Grants Commission Act and Section 20[1] of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, The Central Government hereby directs the UGC and the AICTE to instruct Instructions and Universities in the public interest to maintain a wait list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the waitlisted candidates should be given admissions against the vacant seat. The entire fees collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1000=00 only shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student / candidate withdrawing from the programme.
Accordingly, PUBLIC NOTICE, ADVT. No AICTE/Legal /04[01]/2007 has been circulated and instructed by the Member Secretary [Dr. K. Narayan Rao] to technical Institutions, Universities including Deemed to be Universities imparting Technical Education regarding matters concerning charging of fees, refund of fees and other student related issues.
Hence, it is clear from the fact and circumstances that, negligence and unfair trade practice under Section 2[47] of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 have been occurred on behalf of the Opposite Parties. But there was no occurance of any deficiency in service.
Hence, the O. P. is liable to be penalized Rs.30, 000=00 only as litigation cost, Rs. 1,00,000=00 only as compensation amount to be paid to the complainant within 45 days from the date of issuing this order.
The O. P. IS also liable to refund Rs. 2,21,250.00 only to the complainant with 8% simple interest from the date of payment on11/7/2017 by the Complainant within 45 days from the date of issuing this order.
Consequently, the complaint case is succeeded.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the opposite party with a cost of 30,000=00 (thirty thousand) only.
The opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 1, 00,000=00 (Rs. one lakh) only as compensation amount for the negligence and unfair trade practice occurred under Section 2[r] of the Consumer Protection Act 1986
The opposite party is also directed to refund Rs. 2, 21,250.00 only to the complainant with 8% simple interest from the date of payment on11/7/2017 by the Complainant within 45 days from the date of issuing this order.
In case of failure, the O.P. will be responsible to bear 7 % p.a. simple interest upon the litigation cost and compensation amount from the date of issuing this order and till the date of realization.
The complainant is given liberty to file an Execution Case against O. P., in case of non-compliance of this Order, through the machinery of this Ld. Commission but after 45 days from the date of issuing this Order.
Let copies of the order be supplied to all the parties concerned in either speed post /registered post free of cost as per rule.
The final order be also available in www.confonet.nic.in .
Dictated and Corrected by me.
( Jagadish Chandra Barman)
(MEMBER)
