STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

Sidhant Gupta, House No.1121-A, Sector 24-B, Chandigarh

                                                                                      … Appellant

V E R S U S

1.       Panjab University through its Vice Chancellor, Sector 14, Chandigarh -160014.

2.       Panjab University through its Registrar, Sector 14, Chandigarh -160014 .

                                                                         ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 01.11.2023 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.608/2021.

BEFORE:       Mrs. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr. PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.Sidhant Gupta,  Appellant in person (on VC).

                         Sh.Ajay Sood, Advocate for the Respondents. 

 PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.11.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the complaint being not maintainable before the Consumer Commission.  

2.        Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/appellant  that he filled up the Entrance Examination Form of PU-CET P.G. (2020) for the admission in course of LL.M. in the OP- University by paying Rs.2175/- as fee for Entrance Test , which was scheduled  to be conducted on 9th-10^th October,2020. On 30.09.2020, the OP-University made a press release stating that due to COVID-19 Pandemic situation, the Panjab University has scrapped all the entrance tests including  PU-CET (P.G.) and also stated that all the registered candidates for PU-CET (P.G.) have to fill the Admission Form by 15th October 2020 for consideration in the Admission process.   Subsequently, the OP-University opened up the admission form for all the students to fill up the PU-CET (2020) and also extended the date to fill up the Entrance examination form till 21st October 2020 and also extended the date for filling the admission form till 22nd October 2020. However,  the university  never opened up the portal for those who wanted to withdraw their application form due to change in the admission process.   The complainant through  email dated 13.10.2020 requested  the OPs for refund of the amount of Entrance Examination Form to which he received the reply from the university on 14/10/2020 stating that "The fee for the entrance test once paid shall not be refunded/ transferred/ adjusted.  The complainant then raised the complaint with National Consumer Helpline with Complaint No. 2354665   and the notice was also sent to the Opposite Parties but to no effect.  He also raised the complaint GRIEVANCE- STU-2020-63999-1 with Online Student Grievance Redressal Portal, against  OP No.1 and on 18/11/2020, he got the reply stating that "The decision of change was taken due to COVID-19 problem faced by the country. However, the grievance of the student has been sent to the COE, PU for immediate reply."   On 31.12.2020, he received response from the OPs through email stating as under:-

“This is for your information that regarding refund of entrance test fee- discussion in this matter is still awaited as it is under consideration."

                    Thereafter, when no response was received,  he sent e-mail to the OPs on 08.07.2021 but he did not get any response. It has been alleged that OPs failed to  conduct the entrance exam despite the fruitful efforts made by many other universities for conducting the exams like NLUD, DELHI UNIVERSITY, CLAT, AIL and many other universities. It is further alleged that the O.P. University without conducting the entrance examination arbitrarily and fraudulently took up the hefty amount of entrance examination fee from more than 50,000 students when the entrance examination was not possible by the university to conduct at any stage. Alleging deficiency in service and  unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, a consumer complaint was filed  before the Learned Lower Commission seeking  refund of  the entrance fee along with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.

3.                  Pursuant to issuance of notice, Opposite Parties appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and contested the complaint.  It was inter-alia stated that the entrance test was not compulsory for the O.P. university for admissions in any course, however, due to COVID-19 pandemic, the Opposite Parties decided to give chance to the students on merit and accordingly the contenders were advised to fill up the admission form but complainant failed to do so. Various preliminary objections were taken  inter- alia stating  that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint and the Commission had got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. It was stated that the complaint was liable to be dismissed in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in CWP No.20899/2020 –Ayush Vs. UOI and Others and  CWP No.18893/2020-Anirudh Sharma Vs. Panjab University, Chandigarh.  It was further stated that in  the prospectus (Annexure P-1)  it was clearly stated that PU-CET (PG) fee is non-refundable and  as per General rules, in no case, the fee for the “PU-CET (PG)2020 once paid shall be refunded/transferred/adjusted.  It was further pleaded that since the power of university to scrap the entrance examination has been upheld, no case is made out to give direction to return/refund the fee paid by the complainant for purchase of application form. The remaining allegations were denied, and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission  came to the conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable before it ( Consumer Commission) and dismissed the same.

5.                Aggrieved against the   aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant  for  setting aside the impugned order and grant of relief(s) as prayed for in the complaint. 

6.                  We have heard the appellant as well as learned  Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 7.                 It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Entrance Test Application form invited by the respondents was related to the admission stage only and not related to the afterward services of imparting the knowledge provided by the educational institution, thus, the conduct of entrance examination comes under the head of service as this is not ‘education’ being provided by the respondents.  It was further contended that the consideration was paid by the appellant for taking the Common Entrance Test of  the respondents, however as the entrance examination never happened, the fee collected on account of the said examination was required to be refunded.  It was further contended that if the PU CET (P.G)2020  was scrapped then all the related documents alogwith the prospectus of PU CET (PG) for the purpose of admission and rules mentioned therein  also got nullified, however, the impugned order is based on the older precedents set out by the higher Commissions.  On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite justified and no interference  is required therein. 

8.               There is no denying the fact that  Panjab University-Common Entrance Test(Postgraduate) was scrapped on account of COVID-19 pandemic and the admission was based on the previous year qualifying examination merit. Thus, there was change in the method of admission procedure and the contending applicants were directed to fill in the admission form by paying Rs.300/- apart from the Entrance examination form. The appellant was not interested in participating the admission process due to change in the process of admission intake, therefore, he requested the respondents to refund the amount of entrance examination  The said request of the appellant was rejected by the respondents on the basis of a condition in the prospectus that the fee for the entrance test once paid shall not be refunded/transferred/adjusted.           

9.                  It is to be seen whether  the University was competent to scrap the entrance examination  and a direction can be issued to the University to refund the fee paid for entrance test which was not conducted due to COVID-19 pandemic, being an exceptional unexpected and peculiar circumstance.  The decision of the University to scrap all entrance tests for admission to all courses in the University was upheld by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Chiraag Malli Vs  Punjab University, Chandigarh and others CWP No.16962 of 2020 decided on 04.11.2020. Thereafter, Civil Writ Petition No.18993 of 2020 titled as Anirudh Sharma Vs Panjab University whereby a direction was sought to the University to take steps for conducting PU-CET (PG) entrance test for LL.M. or in the alternative return the examination fee charged from the applicant for the purpose of conducting the examination  was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 10.11.2020.  Thereafter, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide judgment dated 12.01.2021  in the case titled as CWP No.20899/2020 –Ayush Vs. UOI and Others,   held as under:-

“After going through the contents of the writ petition and the written statement, at the outset, reference can be made to the judgment passed in Chiraag Malli's case (supra). In this case, the Division Bench has examined, in detail, the issue with regard to the decision of the University to scrap the entrance examination. After going through the minutes of meeting and the rules framed by Bar Council of India, the Division bench held that there was no mandate for holding of an entrance test for admitting students to the courses leading to the conferment of degree in law. It was further held that due to the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, being an exceptional, unexpected and peculiar circumstance, the opinion formed by the Committee, constituted by the respondent-University, for scrapping the entrance examination does not call for any interference by the Court. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court in Anirudh Sharma's case (supra), has dismissed a petition, whereby direction was being sought to the University to take steps for conducting PU-CET (PG) entrance test for LL.M. or in the alternative return the examination fee charged from the petitioner (therein) for the purpose of conducting the examination. The said petition was dismissed keeping in view the judgment passed in Chiraag Malli's case (supra).

In view of the judgments passed in Chiraag Mali and Anirudh Sharma's cases (supra), no case for giving direction to the respondent University to return the examination fee is made out. Moreover, it is clearly stated in the prospectus (Annexure P-1) as under:-

“PU-CET (PG) FEE (Non-Refundable)

General Category : Rs.2175/-

SC/ST/PwD category    : Rs.1088/-

Additional Subject    :Rs.575/- per additional subject”

Further, as per General Rules, as reproduced above, in no case, the fee for the PU-CET (P.G.) 2020 once paid, shall be refunded/transferred/adjusted. Since power of the University to scrap the entrance examination has been upheld, no case is made out to give direction to the respondent-University to return/refund the fee paid by the petitioner for purchase of the application form.”

10.                The case law cited above is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. We find that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of  law on the point and does not suffer from illegality and perversity warranting any interference of this Commission.                 

11.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,   with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.  

12.             Pending interlocutory  application, if any, also stands disposed of

13.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

14.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.