DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 66 of 02-03-2009<br /> Decided on : 20-08-2009 <br /> <br /> Vikram Kumar S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Bagha Purana, District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjabi University, Patiala through its Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala.<br /> 2.The Joint Director, Engineering Colleges of Punjabi University, Patiala.<br /> 3.The Dean College of Engineering, Punjabi University, Phul Mehraj Road, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, through its Principal.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Rajneesh Rampal, Advocate counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate<br /> counsel for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the opposite parties with the allegations that he took admission in the College of engineering, Rampura Phul i.e. opposite party No. 3 in July, 2007, which is affiliated with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and deposited the required fee with opposite party No. 3 amounting to Rs. 39,945/-. He got admission in Lovely Professional University at Jallandhar in B. Tech. Honour M.B.A. in Mechanical and he surrendered his seat of opposite party No. 3 and made request for refund of 75% fee as per rules. He averred that as per rule of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 if a student surrenders a seat before the start of counseling then he is entitled for refund of 75% of total fee. Despite his repeated requests for refund of the fee, the fee was not refunded to him and his request was not acceded to on one pretext or the other. Finally they flatly refused to refund the fee on the pretext that the seat surrendered by him could not be filled due to which the fee cannot be refunded to him which is totally illegal, arbitrary and amounts to gross deficiency in service. Thus, he seeks directions from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund 75% of the admission fee and also pay to him compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for mental tension, agony, botheration and harasment suffered by him, in addition to the litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3300/-.<br /> 2. The opposite parties contested the allegations raising inter-alia objections that complainant has no cause of action; he has not filed the complaint with clean hands; there is no deficiency in service; complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct and the complaint has been filed on false, frivolous and vexatious facts.<br /> On merits, while denying all the allegations raised by the complainant, the opposite parties pleaded that the last counseling at Rampura Phul was held on 17-08-2008 and as per rules of Punjabi University, Patiala, the refund/adjustment of fee can only be allowed if seat fell vacant due to withdrawl 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 vacant due to withdrawl of complainant was not filled as no counselling was held after 17-08-2008 and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any refund/adjustment of fee.<br /> 3. Parties in order to prove their respective contentions have led respective evidence. <br /> 4. The complainant Sh. Vikram Kumar has filed his affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopies of receipts Ex. C-2, Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6, photocopy of Admission card Ex. C-4, photocopy of fee refund rules Ex. C-7, photocopy of letter dated 9-1-08 Ex. C-8, photocopy of legal notice dated 4.8.08 and photocopy of Prospectus Ex. C-10.<br /> 5. In rebuttal, the opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit of Sh. S S Khehra, Registrar Ex. R-1, photocopy of letter dated 12-09-07 Ex. R-2, photocopy of cutting of news paper regarding admission Ex. R-3, photocopy of rules and regulations regarding refund of fee Ex. R-4 and photocopy of Prospectus Ex. R-5.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.<br /> 7. The main contention raised on behalf of the complainant is that he surrendered his seat on 07-09-2007 and no second counselling had taken place till that date. As per the rules, he surrendered his seal before the start of second counselling and therefore, he is entitled to get refund of 75% of the total fee from the opposite parties as per Annexure Ex. C-7 whereas the contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties is that as per the rules of Punjabi University refund/adjustment of fee can only be allowed if a student withdraws and the seat fell vacant due to his withdrawl is filled by another student and certificate to his effect is issued by Head of the concerned department. In support of this contention, the opposite parties relied upon the Rules Ex. R-4.<br /> 8. We have considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the counsel for the parties.<br /> 9. We have taken into consideration the Rules Ex. C-7 placed on record by the complainant as well as Ex. R-4 brought on record on behalf of the opposite parties. The perusal of Ex. C-7 reveals that refund of the 75% of total fees (including annual and monthly charges) paid by a student at the time of admission to any Engineering College of Punjabi University be refunded provided that the student has surrendered his/her seat two days before the start of second counselling. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that that the complainant surrendered his seat on 07-09-2007 whereas no counselling was held after 17-08-2007 as is apparent from notice of admission Ex. R-3. Otherwise also, as per rules contained in Ex. C-7, the complainant is entitled for refund of fee subject to the provisions of his surrendering the seat before start of second counselling which in the present case never took place and therefore, the rules contained in Ex. C-7 for refund of 75% of the total fee, relied upon by the complainant, are not applicable. As per rules of the opposite parties Ex. R-4 refund of fee ,after deducting 10% or subject to maximum of Rs. 1000/-, is admissible subject to condition that the seat surrendered and fell vacant is filled up and a certificate to that effect is given by the head of the department concerned which is not the case of the complainant. The complainant has not pleaded such facts nor he claimed refund under this rule.<br /> 10. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence produced on record by the parties, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore, the complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 11. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be indexed and consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 20-08-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br />