| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.66/2011 Ms. Shweta Bhardwaj D/o Sh. Kishan Sharma R/o H.N. 65, Gali No. 4, East Laxmi Market, Near Radhu Palace, Delhi- 92 ….Complainant Versus Apeejay Education Society Through its President, Smt. Sushma Berlia 14, Commercial Complex, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash- II, New Delhi Apeejay College of Engineering Through its Principal, Dr. Sarbjit Singh Village Silani, (Palwal-Sohna Road) Sohna, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana- 122103 ….Opposite Party Date of Institution : 17.02.2011 Date of Order : 18.01.2022 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal - Facts of the case as pleaded by the Complainant are that the Complainant applied for B.Tech course in Information Technology with Apeejay College of Engineering (OP-2), which is being run under the aegis of Apeejay Education Society (OP-1).
- The Complainant on 10.08.2009 deposited Rs.1,79,590/- against receipt no. 1927 towards the fee for first year and also for accommodation in the hostel. After the completion of first year the Complainant deposited Rs.1,65,150/- through cheque/Bank Draft No. 020549 drawn on Bank of India dated 21.07.2010 for second year. In the beginning of second year that is in the third semester the Complainant was informed that the Information Technology course, which she had opted for was changed to Computer Science for the reasons best known to OPs. The Complainant was not interested to do the Computer Science course. The Complainant protested and told OP-2 that she took admission in IT course, had completed first year as an IT student and as per the Brochure as well as Student Charter provided at the time of admission she intended getting her degree in the same course. Therefore, OP cannot in the mid-stream ask her to change the course. She was only willing to continue with her IT course in the college of OP-2.
- It is averred that the Complainant submitted a written request to OP-2 for withdrawal of her candidature in the second year. The Complainant also sought refund of the tuition fee and hostel charges apart from damages. As OPs paid no heed to her requests the Complainant sent a legal notice on 27.10.2010. Aggrieved on not receiving any response from OPs the Complainant approached this Forum with prayer for direction to OPs to pay Rs.3,46,240/- towards the fee and hostel charges paid by her. It is also prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for spoiling the career of the Complainant, mental agony and wastage of time as well as the cost of legal proceedings.
- OPs filed their written version stating inter-alia that OP-1 is a society registered under the Society Registration Act, which is running, managing and operating educational institutes including the OP-2. It is stated by OP-2 that the Complainant being desirous of obtaining admission in B.tech in Information Technology, after having read through and understood the terms and conditions as prescribed in the prospectus applied for the admission with OP-2. OP-2 next states that it is specifically mentioned in the prospectus that refund of tuition fee, if any, shall be as per HSCS admission brochure, 2009-10, AICTE instruction and undertaking as detailed in the prospectus. OP-2 further states that the Complainant duly completed two semesters of the course being the first year and after giving exam was promoted to Second year. The Complainant attended college for a few days in the third semester; thereafter she stopped attending the classes without any information to OP-2.
- OP-2 next submits that at the request of vast number of students OP-2 sought permission from the Vice Chancellor of Maharishi Dayanand University for transfer of students from Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering (E&I) to Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) and from Information Technology (IT) to Computer Science Engineering (CSE), which permission was granted by the University to OP-2. Pursuant to the approval of the university OP-2 issued a circular dated 16.09.2010, there by informing all the students about the change of branch. The students were duly informed that the change of branch was voluntary and those students who were interested in changing their branch must exercise their choice by submitting their application to the Dean on 16.09.2010. It is thus manifestly clear that the branch was neither changed nor any of the course was stopped, rather it was the choice of the students, who wanted to change their branch, they could do so by applying in writing.
- The Complainant neither changed the stream from IT nor attended college in Information Technology stream, in fact stopped attending classes after September, 2010. It is further stated that classes for other batches of the Information Technology course were functional throughout the year, thereby proving that there was no shortage of faculty members for the same course. Since the Complainant withdrew mid-stream and without any communication to the college therefore, she is not entitled to any refund. Moreover, as the seat vacated by the Complainant had remained vacant therefore also Complainant fee cannot be refund. It is thus prayed that the present complaint being vexatious and frivolous be dismissed with exemplary cost.
- Replication on behalf of the Complainant was filed vehemently denying that the Information Technology course was running in the college of OP-2. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed on behalf of the parties. Arguments on behalf of OP are heard. Material placed on record is perused carefully.
- It is not disputed that the Complainant had attended one year of B.Tech in Information Technology and paid the consideration of Rs.1,79,590/- towards the first year fee for the course and hostel charges. The Complainant had also deposited Rs.1,65,150/- through cheque/bank draft drawn on Bank of India
dated 21.07.2010 as fee for second year. The issue for consideration before us is that the Complainant withdrew from the course in the third semester stating that OP-2 had changed the Information Technology course which the Complainant had opted for, to Computer Science Engineering.
- As the Complainant was not interested in doing Computer Science and the Information Technology course, which she had initially joined, was stopped
mid-stream, she had no option but to withdraw from the college of OP-2. Whereas OP-2 has denied that the said IT course was ever stopped, in fact students were given a choice to opt for the Information Technology course or the Computer Science Engineering.
- OP-2 in support of its contention has filed
- Month wise list of faculty members in Information Technology and Computer Science Departments from August, 2010 to November, 2011 exhibited as exhibit 6 at page 42 of the affidavit by way of evidence.
- True copies of instruction alongwith list given to the bank by OP-2 for payment of monthly salary to its faculty members exhibited as exhibit R-7. The month wise attendance sheet of faculty members of Information Technology and Computer Science Departments as exhibit R-8.
- Circular issued by OP-2 for change of branch in third semester dated 16.09.2010 as exhibit R-5 at page 41 of the evidence by way of affidavit of OP.
- After going through the evidence of OP, we opine that the evidence adduced by OP does not repose confidence as OP has not brought any substantial evidence on record to show that Information Technology course was still in subsistence even after the introduction of Computer Science Engineering. OP has not filed any Recognition and Affiliation certificate or any rules of the University or any communication with university showing that the students could be transferred from one course to another in the third semester and that the Information Technology course was still being run by OP-2. The Attendance sheets or the salary paid to faculty etc. cannot be substitute to evidence of Recognition and Affiliation by the University to prove that the IT course was still running after the introduction of Computer Science Engineering. Further the attendance sheets adduced as evidence does not repose confidence specially when the same are handwritten and capable of being manipulated.
- We are thus of the opinion that OP-2 has not placed the best evidence, which should have been available with them to prove their case. Therefore, in the absence of fool proof evidence that Information Technology course was still running after the introduction of the Computer Science Engineering we draw an inference that the Complainant rightly, withdrew from the college of OP-2 as OP-2 did not provide what it had promised for, in its Brochure and Students Charter to the Complainant.
- OP has placed its reliance on
i. Neha Sharma V/S Vice Chancellor reported in 2005, 118 DLT 518, wherein it is upheld that the student is bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the prospectus. ii. The Hon’ble high court of Karnataka in the case of Sareefa B.T. Mohammad Ali Jinnah V/S VC Manipal Academy reported in2006(3) AIR Kar R 267 held that when an undertaking has been given by student and his or her guardian regarding not claiming refund of fee and paying the fee for the rest of the course, then it is not open for the candidate come before the court seeking a direction, which is contrary to the undertaking given before the authority, when the admission was granted. iii. The Hon’ble National Commission in Ramdeo Baba Engineering College
V/S Sushant Yuvraj reported in1994(3)CPJ 160 held that as the student withdrew from the college voluntarily as such there was no deficiency of service on part of the college. - The case laws cited by OP-2 is of no assistance to them as all these cases are distinguishable on facts. Complainant did withdraw from the college of OP-2 but only because the course that is Information Technology, in which she sought admission, was stopped and she was asked to change her course to Computer Science Engineering by OP-2, in which she was not interested. Therefore, we are of the opinion that as both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions, OP-2 in this case admitted the Complainant to B. Tech Information Technology course and assured that she would graduate in the same. However, for reasons best known to OP-2 the course was stopped mid-way. Failure of contractual obligation amounts to deficiency in service.
- Therefore, this Commission is of the opinion that the OPs are deficient in service and the Complainant is entitled to refund of the fee paid by her. In fact, loss of one year of the academic career of the Complainant can not be quantified for, however, we award Rs.1,00,000/- in lumpsum to the Complainant for the loss suffered alongwith the fee for first year that is Rs.1,02,590/- after deducting the hostel charges from Rs.1,75,590/- as she had availed the hostel facilities in first year. The fee paid for second year that is Rs.1,65,150/- be also refunded as no service of OP was availed in second year.
- Therefore, in view of the discussion above OPs are directed to pay Rs.2,67,740/- @4% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Additionally, OP is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of the academic year and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges. Failing which OP will pay Rs.2,67,740/- @8% towards the fee deposited by the Complainant alongwith Rs1,0,5000.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. | |
