Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/60/2015

Ankit Sasan S/o Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Siddhivinayak Educational Trust - Opp.Party(s)

Seema sehgal

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                       Complaint No. 60 of 2015.

                                                                                       Date of institution: 19.02.2015

                                                                                       Date of decision: 21.12.2016.

Ankit Sasan aged about 22 years son of Sh. Ashok Kumar, resident of village Daradullian, Tehsil Haveli, District Punchh ( J & K).

                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Shree Sidhivinayak Educational Trust Group of Educations, Vill. Shahpur-Bilaspur Road, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Director.
2. Shree Sidhivinayak Educational Trust, Vill. Shahpur-Bilaspur Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Principal/authorized person.                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                       …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Smt. Seema Sehgal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                Sh. R.C.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondents.        

ORDER

 

1.                       The present complaint has filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that the respondents( hereinafter referred as Ops) be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 94,000/- i.e. admission fee and hostel charges and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant got deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide receipt No. 8584 dated 14.08.2013 as admission fee and also deposited Rs. 44,000/- vide receipt No. 4621 dated 14.08.2013 as hostel charges with the OPs Institute. At the time of admission, the OPs had assured and agreed that if the complainant wanted to leave the seat or institute at the initial stage, the amount paid by the complainant will be refunded without any deduction. After admission, the classes were started on 20.08.2013 and the complainant attended the classes but the complainant was not satisfied with the study, so, the complainant left the institute and informed the OPs Institute in this regard on 07.09.2013. The complainant also moved an application to the OPs Institute requesting to refund the amount deposited by him but all in vain. The official of the OPs Institute have illegally withheld the amount of Rs. 94,000/- and refused to refund the same. Hence, this act of the OPs Institute constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and opposite party as the OPs Institute is self-financed Institute and has to generate its fund of its own and due to the act of the complainant, the OPs have suffered a financial loss by voluntarily surrenderied the seat after attending the classes for number of days as already admitted by the complainant. The complainant had surrendered the seat voluntarily and discontinued his studies from the institute of the Ops without any intimation and permission. The seat allotted to the complainant remained unfilled throughout the session/ duration of the course and as such the opposite party has also suffered financial loss due to non-payment of fee for the next three years by the complainant and instead of paying the fee, the complainant has preferred to file the present complaint and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of receipt dated 14.08.2013 amounting to Rs. 50,000/- as Annexure C-1, photocopy of receipt dated 14.08.2013 amounting to Rs. 44000/- as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs closed the evidence of the OPs without tendering any documents.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant got deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 14.08.2013 with the Ops Institute vide receipt No. 8584 (Annexure C-1) as admission fee for taking the admission in B.Tech Course in Civil Engineering. It is also not disputed that complainant deposited Rs. 44000/- on the same day i.e. on 14.08.2013 vide receipt No. 4621 dated 14.08.2013 as hostel charges which is duly evident from the copy of receipt Annexure C-2. The only plea of the complainant is that the OPs Institute has wrongly and illegally withheld the amount of Rs. 94,000/- i.e. Rs. 50,000/- as admission fee and Rs. 44000/- as hostel charges and refused to refund the same whereas the complainant left the institute and informed the OPs in this regard within a short span of time i.e. on 07.09.2013 within 22 days from the date of taking admission and within 14-15 days from the date of starting classes i.e. on 20.08.2013. Learned counsel for the complainant referred the case law titled as B.S.B. Vs. A. Rajappa and others, 1978 Seminal, Supreme Court 578 wherein it has been held that education is an industry and students are customers. Further learned counsel for the complainant referred the case law titled as Punjab Technical University Versus Abhinav Aggarwal & Others, 2013(4) CLT page 131 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) – Education- Refund of fee- complainant took admission and deposited fee- Later on complainant got admission in other University and requested for refund of fees- OPs refused to refund fees- whether deficiency on the part of the Op- Held- Yes- Refund of fee, compensation and costs awarded by State Commission upheld- Revision dismissed.

            Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attentions towards guidelines of UGC for students entitlement wherein under clause 3 fee and financial aid 3.1 the students are entitled to prior and full information about amount, components, frequency and mode of any kind of payment including fees or charges of any other kind and refund rules. If a student withdraws before the beginning of the course, the student should be refunded the entire fee given to it with a maximum deduction of Rs. 1000/- ( as notified by UGC on 23^rd April 2007, F. No.1-3/2007 CPP II). Lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs Institute Sh. R.C.Sharma argued at length that complainant has himself admitted in para No.4 of the complaint that he himself was not satisfied with the study and hence, the complainant himself left the institute and informed the OPs Institute in this regard on 07.09.2013.Meaning thereby that no fault lies with the OP Institute. Further, learned counsel for the OPs argued that complainant has himself admitted in this para that classes were started on 20.08.2013 but he informed to the OPs institute on 07.09.2013 i.e. after the commencement of classes. Learned counsel for the Ops further argued that the OPs institute is a self-finance institute and has to generate its funds of its own and due to the act of the complainant, the Ops have suffered a lot and put the institute into financial losses by voluntarily surrendering the seat after attending the classes for number of days. The seat allotted to the complainant remained unfilled throughout the session/ duration of the course and as such the OPs Institute has also suffered financial loss due to the non-payment of fee for the next three years by the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs referred the case law titled as P.T.Koshy & Another Versus Ellen Charitable Trust & Others, 2012(3) CPC page 615 supreme court wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1)(d) & 23- Consumer/ revision- Matter relating to admission fee in a statutory function of educational institution- Matter not covered under “service” under C.P.Act- Complaint under C.P.Act not maintainable.

            Learned counsel for the OPs Institute further draw our attentions towards the case titled as Keshav Sharma Versus Lovely Professional University, First Appeal No. 1599 of 2012 decided on 09.12.2013 by the Hon’bel State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in which the appeal filed by the complainant Keshav Sharma was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission relying upon the judgment of Maharishi Dayanand University Versus Surjeet Kaur, 2010(11) SCC 159, 2010 (2) CPC page 696 Supreme Court wherein it has been held that educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in the matter of admission, fees etc. there cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned counsel for the OPs lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint in toto.

9.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the law referred by both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Institute as from the perusal of written statement filed by the OPs Institute it is clearly evident that complainant not occupied the hostel of the OPs institute as not a single iota of word has been disclosed in the written statement by the OPs Institute that complainant remained in the hostel even for a single day. Even, the OP institute has not disclosed in their written statement that which room of the hostel was allotted to him and on what date he occupied the room of the hostel. In the absence of these details, we are of the opinion that complainant did not occupy hostel of the OPs Institute. Further, the OPs Institute has also not mentioned in their written statement that due to leaving of the college by the complainant, the room of the hostel also remained vacant throughout the year. The citations referred by both the counsels are not disputed but each case has its own different facts. No doubt, as the complainant himself admitted that he left the college/institute due to his own sweet will, hence, we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get refund of the college fee/admission fee as there was no fault on the part of the OPs Institute.

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs institute to refund him the amount of Rs. 44000/- as hostel charges alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.  Order be complied within a stipulated period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 21.12.2016

 

                                                                                           (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                        (S.C.SHARMA )                                       PRESIDENT

                         MEMBER.                                               D.C.D.R.F. YAMUNANAGAR