| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 253 of 21-09-2018. Decided on : 31-01-2022. Amberdeep Kaur Sandhu, aged about 24 years, D/o Sh. Labh Singh Sandhu, R/o H. No. 24197, Street No. R-3, Guru Ki Nagri, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Punjabi University Regional Centre, Bathinda, through its Chief/Head of Education Department Punjabi University, Patiala, through its V.C./Deputy Registrar.
.......Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Amberdeep Kaur Sandhu (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Punjabi University and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she took admission in B.Ed course in Punjabi University, Regional Centre, Bathinda, which is affiliated with opposite party No. 2 vide Roll No. 2039 dated 13-8-2015 and deposited requisited fee of Rs. 40,300/- with opposite party No. 1 and the date of starting of classes was 10-11-2015. It is alleged that before the start of classes, the complainant left the aforesaid seat on 25-8-2015 and never attended any lecture as complainant got admission in Central University, Ghudda in M. Sc. The complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the total fee. As per rules and regulations of the University, the fee of the complainant was recommended to be refunded to the complainant by the Head of the Education Department, Punjabi University, Regional Centre, Bathinda vide letter No. 1636/Education Department dated 9-9-2015 but opposite party No. 2 has failed to refund the said fee to complainant till date although a period of three years has already lapsed. It is further alleged that complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to refund the total amount, but to no effect rather the opposite parties have been putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext and ultimately in the first week of August, 2018, the opposite parties refused to refund any amount to the complainant. The complainant also got issued legal notice dated 8-8-2018 to the opposite parties to refund the total fee, but opposite party No. 1 has given a false and vague reply to the said notice that opposite party No. 1 recommended the matter to opposite party No. 2 for refund of the fee to complainant but did not receive any response. The complainant further alleged that her fee has been illegally and arbitrarily withheld by the opposite parites for the last three years due to which she has suffered grave mental tesion, agony, botheration, harassment and financial loss for which she claims interest on the deposited amount and compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 40,300/- to the complainant with upto date interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. 25-8-2015 till refund and also pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In joint written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has not placed true facts before this Commission; that the complaint is frivolous and without any merit; that complainant does not fall within definition of 'consumer'; that complainant is barred and estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, the opposite parties have pleaded that last date for admission in the B. Ed. Course was 14-8-2015 but the complainant left the course on 25-8-2015 after the last date of admission, as a result of which, the seat vacated by complainant could not be filled and it remained vacant for the whole session. The fee is refundable only as per rules and regulations of the Punjabi University, Patiala. The opposite party No. 2 Punjabi University, is a statutory body. The opposite party No. 1 is a constitutent college of Punjabi University, Patiala. Hence, the rules of the Punjabi University are applicable in this college. In accordance with the provisions of refund policy of the University, as mentioned on page No. 45 of the Handbook of information for the year 2015-16, if any student withdraws, the fees cannot be adjusted/refunded to him or her unless the seat fell vacant due to his or her withdrawal is filled by other student and a certificate to this effect is issued by the Head of the concerned department. In the present case, the seat fell cacant due to withdrawal of complainant was not filled, so the complainant was not entitled to refund/adjustment of fee. The application of complainant for refund of fee was considered under the rules of refund of fees as laid down by the Punjabi University, Patiala. After considering her case for refund of fee under rules, the competent authority declined the request of complainant for refund of fee as per its rules and the complainant was informed accordingly. The opposite parties have also pleaded that opposite party is a statutory body and is working under the rules and regulations framed by the competent authority and cannot go beyond the rules and regulations framed by it. The complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. As held by the superior courts/Forums that education/examination does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-1), photocopy of proforma regarding vacant seat (Ex. C-2), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-3), photocopy of reply of legal notice (Ex. C-4), postal receipts (Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6), and affidavit dated 18-9-2018 of complainant (Ex. C-7). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit dated 2-11-2018 of Sh. Manjit Singh Nijjar (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of brochure (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of schedule (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of list (Ex. OP-1/4), and photocopy of handbook of information (Ex. OP-1/5) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, there is no dispute between the parties the complainant took admission in B.Ed course in Punjabi University Regional Centre, Bathinda, (opposite party No. 1), on 13-8-2018, vide Roll No. 2039 and deposited Rs. 40,300/- vide receipt Ex. C-1. Since the complainant got seat in M.Sc. in Central University, Bathinda, so she left that seat on 25-8-2015 and got admitted herself in Central University, Bathinda. The complainant alleged that she is entitled to refund of the whole amount deposited by her for admission in B. Ed Course as she left the seat in question before the start of classes/session. On the other hand, the plea of the opposite parties is that since the seat left by complainant remained vacant/unfilled, therefore she is not entitled to refund of deposited amount, as per rules of the university. The opposite parties have placed on file Brochure/Prospectus (Ex. OP-1/2 & Ex. OP-1/3) containing rules and regulations for admission to two years B.Ed Programme (Session 2015-2016), which reveals that last date of report of vacant seats to co-ordinator by colleges was 7th August, 2015 upto 2.00 p.m. This document further reveals that as per “Schedule for filling Vacant Seats' , allocation of vacant seats by the respective colleges in order of merit was 10th August, 2015 and Submission of final report of Admission by the colleges of Education was 14th August, 2015. Ex. OP-1/5 is the Handbook of Information 2015-16 of Punjabi University, Patiala It is mentioned in this document under the heading Refund/Adjustment : “After taking admission if the candidate leave the course before the start of clases then the refund will be made by deducting 10% of the tuition fee (maximum of Rs. 1000/-) as the processsing fee. The concerned head of the department will certify that the seat vacated by the candidate has been filled. If the candidate leaves the course after joining the department and the vacated seat is filled upto last day of the admission to the course, then the refund will be made after making proportionate deduction. If the candidate leaves the course after the last day of admission, then no refund will be made. Admittedly in the case in hand, the complainant surrendered the seat on 25-8-2015 whereas, as detailed above, the last date for reporting of vacant seats was 7th August, 2015 and allocation of vacant seats by respective college was 10th August, 2015 and submission of final report of admission was 14th August, 2015. Therefore, complainant surrendered her seat after closing of the whole process of admission. The opposite parties have also produced on file list of students of Class B. Ed Session 2015-16 (Ex. OP-1/4) which reveals that Roll No. 2039 of complainant is missing from the list meaning thereby that the seat of complainant was not filled and it remained vacant for the whole sessession. Hon'ble of National Commission has held in catina of judgements that as per terms of agreement between the parties, admission fee once deposited by the student was not refundable if seats remain vacant. The complainant has placed on record a copy of letter No. 1636/Education Deptt dated 9-9-2015 and pleaded that opposite party No. 1 has recommended refund but opposite party No. 2 failed to refund the amount. A perusal of this letter reveals that ofcourse it is mentioned that refund is recommended but the words as per rules of University are also mentioned in these lines. Therefore, since the seat left by complainant remained vacant/unfilled, opposite parties are not deficient in not refunding the admission amount deposited by complainant. In the result, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 31-1-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
