This revision petition has been filed by the Indian Institute of Hotel Management, who were opposite parties before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, 24 Pgs., Barasat (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short), against the order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (State Commission for short), whereby the State Commission has reversed the dismissal order of the District Forum and allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant.  The State Commission vide the order impugned while drawing adverse inference against the Indian Institute of Hotel Management/opposite parties for intentionally suppressing and withholding the relevant record has directed them to refund Rs.45,460/- being the amount deposited by the respondent/complainant for admission alongwith Rs.1000/- as compensation within a period of 60 days and in default awarded 12% interest over the said amount.

Brief facts of the case are that in response to an advertisement published by the Indian Institute of Hotel Management/opposite parties in ‘Anand Bazar Patrika’ on 23.11.2008, the respondent/complainant by depositing Rs.45,460/- took admission in the Institute on 05.12.2008.  After her admission, the respondent/complainant attended classes for three days and came to know that the course had already commenced sometime in May, 2008 and that the examinations for 2^nd semester would commence in the month of March, 2009. She approached the Course Coordinator/opposite party no.1 seeking to know as to why the advertisement was published at a late stage on 23.11.2008 and she had been admitted for the Hotel Management Course when it had already started from May, 2008.  On this, the opposite parties advised her to attend classes assuring her that they would manage her attendance but it was not possible for her to cope up with the studies at that stage when even the practical examinations had already been completed. The respondent/complainant, therefore, requested the opposite parties to consider her candidature for the next session.  In the meantime, she got a job in Kolkata and she joined there on 02.05.2009.  She also received a communication from the course coordinator/opposite party no.1 that her classes would commence from 27.05.2009 but when the opposite parties did not adhere to their schedule, the respondent/complainant requested for refund of the amount deposited by her but of no avail.  

In this background, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, who vide its order dated 31.12.2009 finding no merit in the complaint dismissed the same.  The respondent/complainant agitated the matter before the State Commission in appeal and the State Commission, drawing adverse inference on the part of opposite parties, set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant in the manner indicated above.

Hence, this revision petition by the opposite parties against the reversal order of the State Commission.

Shri Anup Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Indian Institute of Hotel Management, has been heard on admission.  The main thrust of his argument against the order passed by the State Commission is that the State Commission failed to consider that the advertisement dated 23^rd of November, 2008 published on behalf of the petitioner/Institute in the ‘Anand Bazar Patrika’ nowhere invited any application for admission.  It was an advertisement disseminating general information with regard to the status of the Institute for information of intending applicants.  In the other limb of his arguments, he has contended that the respondent/complainant was all along aware of rule of the Institute, which clearly stipulated that once the fee is deposited, it was not liable to be refunded.  The State Commission ought to have considered this as a part of the agreement/contract and should not have directed the petitioner to refund the said amount.  Finally, he submits that the question as to whether the discontinuance of the respondent/complainant had resulted in the slot remaining vacant throughout the entire course, is not relevant and the State Commission, therefore could not have gone into the question as to whether the petitioner/Institute suffered any financial loss.  Contending that it was the respondent/complainant who herself, on being admitted during the mid session, has abandoned the course on her own choice during 2008 and further that she has not responded to the offer of the Institute to join the session commencing in May 2009, the fault lies squarely on her and the petitioner/Institute cannot be said to have been deficient in rendering the requisite service.

Having carefully gone through the order passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint and also having gone through the impugned order upsetting the order passed by the District Forum and on perusal of the records of the case and further having considered the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/Institute, it can only be observed that the finding of the State Commission that the petitioner/Institute has been deficient stands fully established.  The contention that the advertisement dated 23^rd of November, 2008 in the ‘Anand Bazar Patrika’ was not intended to invite any application for admission stands falsified from the advertisement itself, which is at page 23 of the paper-book, in which it has been stated as under :-

“Application Procedure

Collect the Application Form & Prospectus

Rs.300/- in cash or send DD/MO Rs.400/-“

If the intention was not to invite students for admission, there was no need for the Institute to have indicated the procedure.  On the contrary, they ought to have stated that the next course will commence from May, 2009, for which admission will commence from a specific date.  Further, this plea falls to the ground for the simple reason that the Institute itself had accepted the fee and admitted the student mid way during the course commencing for the year 2008 and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to say that the respondent/complainant was given any special treatment not provided in their rules.

          Insofar as the objection with regard to whether the institute has suffered any financial loss as a result of the respondent/complainant not joining the course commencing May, 2009 is concerned, the same has to be rejected outright for the simple reason that the respondent/complainant had not joined the Institute even for a single day and, therefore, it can be safely presumed that the Institute would have filled up the resultant vacancy, entailing no financial loss whatsoever.  The State Commission was fully within its right to call for the records so as to determine whether there was any scope of allowing the Institute to retain a part of the fee paid by the respondent/complainant for any loss they may have suffered.  The petitioner/Institute has failed to satisfy the State Commission on this count.

          Finally, reliance on the rule of the Institute with regard to a clause that once the fee is paid, the same is not liable to be refunded, it can only be said that this type of one-sided conditions have been overruled by a number of fora, including the University Grants Commissions and the Ministry of Human Resources Development.  In a public notice issued by the University Grants Commission in fact it has been stated that institutions should maintain a waiting list of the students/candidates to fill up the vacancies in the event of a student withdrawing from the course before the starting of the course.  The said guidelines also stipulate that the entire fee collected from the student after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- shall be refunded and returned by the Institute to the students/candidates.  In the case in hand, the State Commission has precisely done that.  The State Commission has not committed any illegality, material irregularity or exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the petitioner/Institute to refund the fee after deducting a sum of Rs.1000/-, which is just, proper and reasonable.

          The revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed with no order as to cost.