PRESENT: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for Complainant.

           Dr.Ranbir Kaur, Legal Representative for OPs.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, Ishan Garg – son of the Complainant took admission in B.Tech C.S.E. Branch 1^st year in OP No. 2 Regional Centre on 30.7.2007 and deposited Rs.39,775/- i.e. Rs.38,775/- + Rs.1,000/- (non-refundable) at the time of admission. He also deposited the Hostel Fee of Rs.6,155/-. He attended the classes upto 9.8.2007 i.e. for 8-9 days and in the subsequent counseling he got admission in CCET, Chandigarh; as such, he applied for refund, upon which the OPs refunded him Rs.19,271/- after deducting Rs.20,272/-. It was only after protracted correspondence, the OPs informed him that the seat fallen vacant had been filled up and the proportionate deductions have been made as per UGC guidelines. The hostel room vacated by him was also allotted to some other student. A request was also made to the OPs for refund of Hostel Fee, which the OPs flatly refused to refund. A legal notice was also sent to the OPs, which has not even been replied to by the OPs. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for refund of balance course fee as well as the hostel charges, alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual payment. Besides this, the Complainant has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and for indulgence in unfair trade practice and Rs.5,500/- towards costs of litigation.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OP seeking their version of the case. 

3]      OPs in their written statement/reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that they had already refunded Rs.19,271/- to the son of the Complainant Mr. Ishan Garg in accordance with the guidelines of the U.G.C. (Annexure R-1). It was asserted that the OPs were/are further ready to refund only the hostel, mess and canteen security, provided the Complainant’s son applied to the OPs on the prescribed refund form for hostel and mess/canteen securities, which he had not done till date inspite of the letter dated 17.6.2009 sent to him by the warden. While admitting the receipt of legal notice, it was submitted that the same was suitably replied to.  All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of his contentions.

5]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant and Legal Representative of OPs. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having taken admission in B.Tech. C.S.E. Branch 1^st at OP No. 2 Regional Centre of OP No.1 on 30.7.2007, by depositing a sum of Rs.39,775/- i.e. Rs.38,775/- + Rs.1,000/- (non-refundable) and also a hostel fee of Rs.6,155/- and that he attended class upto 9.8.2007 and thereafter, during subsequent counselling, he got admission in CCET, Chandigarh, as a consequence of which, he had applied for refund of fee from the OPs, have all been admitted. It is also an admitted fact that the OPs refunded to the Complainant a sum of Rs.19,271/- after deducting Rs.2,0272/-as the proportionate amount of fee for attending the B.Tech. course for part of the academic sessions.

ii] The only dispute between the parties is that on the one hand, the son of the Complainant says that since his son had attended classes only for a period of 8-9 days from the start of admission, the entire amount of fee deposited by him should be refunded to him in full including the hostel charges, as has been done by the OP University in similar two cases; whereas, the contention of the OPs has been that the fee in question has been refunded to the Complainant proportionately, after making deductions of fee for one quarter i.e. June-August, 2007, as he had attended classes for some time. The details of the deduction made by the OPs are at Annexure R-9, which are reproduced below: -

iii] After deducting the above said amount of Rs.20,272/-, the net refund of Rs.19,272/- has already been made to the Complainant. The OPs further say that the refund of the fee has been made strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the U.G.C., in which there is already a provision for deduction of proportionate monthly fee paid by the Student, as well as a sum of Rs.1,000/- as Processing Fee. So far as the refund of hostel fee is concerned, the stand of the OPs is that the son of the Complainant was repeatedly asked by the office of OP to fill in the prescribed refund application form and submit the same to them and thereafter, he will be entitled to receive the refundable securities. The refundable portion of the hostel          fee of Rs.6,155/- is the mess security (Rs.950/-), canteen security (Rs.950/-) and hostel room security (Rs.450/-) total Rs.2,350/-. As per the OPs, this amount was to be claimed as refund by the son of the Complainant within a period of one year from the date of leaving the course, but the student has not completed the prescribed formalities, including filling the form during the given period and in the process, the period of one year has already lapsed. The OPs further go on to say that they had taken special permission of Dean Students Welfare, Panjab University, Chandigarh to refund the said amount even after one year, but the Student himself is not coming forward to get back his refundable security, as if he was not interested in receiving such a sum and for which OPs can’t be blamed or held deficient in service or indulging in an unfair trade practice on that account.  

iv] The Complainant in support of his case has cited and attached affidavits of two more students of the same class namely – Sh.Amit Taneja and Sh. Harshit Anand (Annexure RA-I), claiming that in both the cases, the full amount of fee of Rs.39,545/- was refunded to them. He has also attached the Bank Statement in the case of one of them, showing the credit of Rs.39,545/- through a cheque deposited in the account on 28.2.2008. This contention of the Complainant has been rebutted by the OP (Annexure RA-I), saying that both the students left their seats during second and third counselling as per the report of Director, UIET and that the seats vacated by them were filled up later. The Director, UIET has further certified that both these students had not attended any class and that the fee refund in these two cases was done as per UGC Guidelines. In the present case, the son of the Complainant had already joined the course and attended classes for about ten days. Therefore, the present case is quite distinct from the other two cases cited by the Complainant and, therefore, there could be no comparison between the case of the Complainant on one hand and the other two cases cited by him on the other.

v]  In support of its case, the OPs have cited an authority of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh dated 14.1.2009 in Appeal Case No. 7 of 2009 – Ms. Natasha Singh Vs. Registrar, Panjab University & Anr., in which it has been held by the Hon’ble U.T. State Commission that the University was fully entitled to deduct the fee for a period of one quarter from the total fee deposited by the candidate, in addition to Rs.1,000/- as administrative charges under the UGC Guidelines. The case under reference is quite similar to the one under consideration. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

“9. A perusal of complaint shows that Panjab University had charged total fee of Rs.100810/- for 12 months and the monthly fee comes to Rs.8401/-. The session of BDS was from 7^th June, 2007 to 8^th May, 2008. She attended classes up to 16.8.2008 i.e. she attended classes for about 2 ½ months. So, fee of three months is to be deducted out of total fee deposited by her. The fee of three months comes to Rs.25,203/-. She was also to pay Rs.1000/- as administrative charges under the UGC guidelines, copy of which is Annexure R-3. In this manner, Panjab University had rightly deducted Rs.26,203/- and as such, there is no deficiency on its part.

11. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the Appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed in limine.”

vi] Contrary to the above, the Complainant has also cited one authority reported as 2009(2) CLT 37 – Nipun Nagar V/s Symbiosis Institute of International Business, delivered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, on 07.11.2008. The head note of the judgment is as under:-

         “Nipun Nagar             --- Petitioner 

             V/s

Symbiosis Institute of International Business.

--- Respondent

For the Petitioner: Mr.Zakir Hussain, Adv.

For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Adv.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r) – Education Admission – Fees refund – Unfair trade practice – With the withdrawal of the Petitioner the Institute had not suffered any loss as no seats under the general category was kept vacant for the relevant year – Institute held to be unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee of Rs.1 lakh even after the student withdrew from the Institute – Respondents directed to refund a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the Petitioner along with 6% interest from the date of the Complainant till the date of payment.”

    A close perusal of the above said authority shows that in the above case, the OP/ Respondent had only refunded a sum of Rs.10,000/- out of the total amount received by them to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/-, without providing any explanation or calculation or showing any kind of proportional deduction to the Complainant, which was, therefore, held to be unfair and unjust in  that the OP had retained almost entire fee deposited by the Complainant without any justification or reason. In the present case, the Complainant had deposited merely Rs.39,775/- as course fee, out of which a sum of Rs.19,271/- was refunded to him after making proportionate deduction for one quarter on account of his attending classes for about 10 days during the relevant quarter i.e. June-August 2007 and further, deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/- as administrative charges, strictly in accordance with the UGC guidelines. Further, the OPs were prepared and ready to further refund a sum of Rs.2350/- as refundable Hostel Securities, but the Complainant was not forthcoming and prepared to accept this refund and instead he insisted to get cent percent refund, which was clearly not payable and his request to that effect was just not tenable. 

6]      The above detailed analysis of the entire case clearly shows that the Complainant has not been able to pin-point or specify any particular deficiency in service or indulgence in an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. On the contrary, the Complainant himself took a very hard and unjustified stand and remained uncooperative with the OPs, due to which he could not get even the refundable portion of the hostel charges paid by him. The OPs went all out of the way to accommodate the Complainant by offering to make the refund of hostel securities even after a period of permissible/ prescribed one year of leaving the course by the Complainant, but he refused to fill in the prescribed refund forms and submit the same to OPs and, therefore, the OPs were not able to pay back the said amount of Rs.2350/- to him. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7]      In view of above, it is our considered opinion that there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint and the same deserves rejection. We, therefore, dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

8]     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.