Date of Filing: 13.02.2019. Date of Disposal: 20.05.2022.
Complainant :Tridib Ghosh, S/O Tinkari Ghosh, resident of Mistripara, P.O. Bolpur, P.S.
Bolpur, Dist. Birbhum, Pin 731204.
-VERSUS -
Opposite Party : NSHM Academy, (NSHM Group of Institution), Represented by its
Principal, NSHM Knowledge Campus, Arrah, Shibtala Via Muchipara, P.O.& P.S. Durgapur, Dist. Paschim Bardhaman, Pin 713201
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen -Hon’ble President.
: Mrs. Lipika Ghosh - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant : Sri Subro Chakraborty Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Party : Sri Mohon Kumar Mondal Ld. Advocate.
FINAL ORDER
On 13.02.2019 the complainant, Tridib Ghosh, has filed this complaint against the OP u/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 06.09.2017 the complainant took admission at the OP’s Institution in B. Tech EEE after going through the due procedure of the OP and total admission fees for the first year was Rs. 59,850/- including several heads. At the time of admission on 06.09.2017, the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- in cash to the OP towards admission fees and proposed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.29,850/- at a later stage. The OP issued a money receipt bearing No. NGO1/06-09-17/1879 and he got admission in Bolpur College subsequently after admission on 06.09.2017 at the Institution of the OP. The father of the complainant then submitted a written request before the OP for withdrawing the admission of his son (complainant) and the OP duly received the same on 08.09.2017. Though the OP assured that they would refund the paid amount to him, but the OP did not take any step and the complainant again requested the OP for the same on 19.01.2018 but the OP did not refund the said amount. Thereafter, he applied before the Consumer Affairs Department, Durgapur, the OP again did not co-operate. Accordingly, the complainant filed this case.
Cause of action arose on 08.09.2017.
Upon this background, the complainant prays for passing necessary order directing the OP to refund Rs.30, 000/- along with interest @10%p.a. from 08.09.2017 till realization and also directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1, 00,000/- as compensation and Rs.20, 000/- as litigation cost.
The OP has contested the case by filing Written Version denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint and that there is no cause of action for the case and that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer and that the complaint cannot be considered as defined u/S 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that there is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of the OP and that the complaint is barred by law of limitation.
The specific case of the OP is that the complainant took admission before this Institution after starting of the course and on going through the all Rules and Regulations of admission. Not only that actual admission fee for the first semester is Rs.59, 850/- but the complainant due to stringent money approached the OP to take admission in the Institution after payment of Rs.30,000/- and committed to pay the balance amount within a week. It is further stated that the complainant’s claim is false and baseless as per guidelines of AICTE and the OP is guided by AICTE. A student can get refund of money as per rules and regulations of AICTE. This student cannot get refund of the said money as per the guidelines of AICTE. On the other hand, the OP is entitled to get Rs.29, 850/- from the complainant as due of the first semester fees. Upon this background, the OP prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with Reasons.
In order to prove the case, the complainant has examined himself by filing evidence-on-affidavit and the OP also filed questionnaire against the said evidence. The complainant again filed reply to the said questionnaire. The Written Version supported by an affidavit was treated as evidence-on-affidavit on behalf of the OP and the complainant was not willing to file questionnaire against the evidence of OP. Accordingly, the argument of the case was heard in full from both sides.
It is the case of the complainant that after observing the all procedures prescribed by the OP , he got admission into the OP in B. Tech. EEE on 06.09.2017 and out of total fees for the course Rs.59,850/- he only paid Rs.30,000/- and proposed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.29,850/- in latter stage but he got admission in another Institution at Bolpur College , after taking admission into the OP and subsequently prayed for returning of the said payment of Rs.30,000/- which has already been paid by him to the OP and as the OP did not refund the same, he filed this case alleging that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP admitted that the complainant paid Rs.30, 000/- on 06.09.2017 for the first semester of the said course out of Rs.59,850/- and as per the request of the complainant , the OP gave the complainant admission to make payment of rest amount of Rs.29,850/- as per his commitment. But without paying the same he got admission in another Institution at Bolpur College.
Therefore, in this case, the main dispute is to refund of Rs.30,000/- by the OP which was paid by the complainant as college semester fees and admission fees. But the OP denied the said allegation in one hand and on the other hand the OP submitted that according to the guidelines of the AICTE, the complainant cannot get refund of the said money. According to the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant took admission in another Institution after taking admission in the OP-Institution on 06.09.2017 and he has already withdrawn himself from the Institution of OP. Ld. Advocate for the OP argued that as per guidelines of AICTE, in this case, the complainant cannot get refund of the said money. He pointed out the Guideline No. 11 of AICTE Approval Process Handbook (2017-2018) and as the OP is guided by the AICTE, the guidelines are applicable for the OP and his students.
The said guidelines disclose that a student can get refund of money in the following cases:-
- In the event of student withdrawing his admission before the starting of the course, the entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) shall be refunded by the Institution.
- Should a student leave after joining the course and if the vacated seat is consequently filled by another student by the last date of admission, the Institution must refund the fee collected after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and proportionate deduct ion of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.
- In case vacated seat is not filled, the Institution should refund the security deposit and return the original documents.
According to the case of the complainant, the complainant took admission on 06.09.2017. So, the clause No.(a) is not applicable in this case. Similarly, Clause No.(b) is also not applicable to the complainant as he withdrew from the Institution of OP after joining the course and the vacated seat was not subsequently filled up by another student and the Clause No.(c) is also not applicable to the complainant because the complainant did not pay the security money of the concerned course semester.
Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP or there was an unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
As a result, the case fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the Consumer Complaint No. 25/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP but no order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.
Member President
D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.
