Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by opposite party is directed against the order dated 30.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.647 of 2008 of respondent/complainant Sh.Janak Arora was allowed with costs of Rs.2000/- and OP was directed to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.18,000+5,500+20000+20000+2418 = Rs.65,918/- within thirty days of the receipt of copy of the order failing which the OP was made liable to pay the same alongwith interest @ 12% per annum since 10.9.2007 (the date on which the complainant’s daughter withdrew from the College) till actual payment. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant got admitted his daughter Ms. Sabina Arora in Master e-Business Administration on the basis of interview, intimation regarding which was given by the OP vide letter dated 7.3.2007. Thereafter, on 17.3.2007, he sent a Draft bearing No. 017448 for Rs.50,508/- in favour of OP through S.B.P. Chandigarh Service Branch, which was duly received by the OP. OP then issued Receipt No.61 regarding payment of Refundable Security of Rs.5000/- plus Rs.24,000/- as Hostel Rent. Thereafter, complainant sent a Draft bearing No.18043 dated 11.7.2007 for Rs.89,888/- and another Draft No. 018262, dated 23.8.2007 for Rs.20,000/- in favour of the OP, which was duly received by the OP and his daughter was allotted Roll No.61. Besides this, separate receipt of Misc. expenditure deposited by his daughter of Rs.5500/- was also issued by the OP. The daughter of the complainant joined the course on 16.7.2007 but she had to leave the Institution in the month of September 2006 due to her illness and she was admitted to Aditya Birla Health Service Ltd., Pune from, where she was discharged on 4.9.2007. She was advised complete bed rest and avoidance of studies. It was alleged that the seat vacated by her did not remain vacant and was subsequently filled up. The complainant sent a written request dated 18.3.2008 to the OP to refund the fee in reply to which vide letter dated 12.3.2008 OP directed the Complainant to produce an affidavit/undertaking regarding the acceptance of any decision of Advisory Council, to whom the case was forwarded. Thereafter, the Complainant again wrote a letter to the OP requesting to refund the said amount without any undertaking as there was no need for any such undertaking or affidavit, but to no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of admission fee of Rs.1,85,396/- alongwith interest besides compensation of Rs.one lac and costs etc. 4. The case of OPs before the District Forum was that the daughter of the Complainant joined the OP institute on 14.7.2007 and withdrew herself on 10.9.2007. At the time of the voluntary withdrawal, she was handed over all the original testimonials; refundable security deposit of Rs.10,000/- and refundable hostel deposit of Rs.5,000/-. It was pleaded that as per the discharge summary dated 4.9.2007, the student was admitted on 3.9.2007 with a day old history of pain in the abdomen, nausea and it was diagnosed that she was suffering from “Right Ureteric Colic” which plainly means Stone in the Urethera, for which she was hospitalized earlier on two previous occasions. Her condition on discharge was stated to be “Improved”. The only advice given was to avoid milk products in the future and no advice regarding rest and avoidance of studies was reflected in the said discharge summary, as alleged. It was pleaded that the seat vacated by the daughter of the Complainant was never filled up and remained vacant throughout the session . The Complainant was adequately explained that no further refund was possible as per the Rules of the OP and the University; however, he was requested to approach the Academic Council (Advisory Board) of the OP for further redressal, if so advised. The Board, when approached by Complainant, asked him to submit an affidavit, which he did not submit and rather threatened to knock at the doors of law. As he refused to file the necessary affidavit in question, therefore, the matter in issue could not be considered any further and stood closed. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on its part and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, opposite party has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of appellant/OP is that the District Forum at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the matter in dispute as complainant is resident of Gobindgarh, the institute of OP is situated at Pune, Maharashtra and did not have a branch office at Chandigarh at the time of institution of the complaint. Further the cause of action, wholly or in part did not arise within the confines of Chandigarh, so the District Forum at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction. The other point of arguments was that the student had voluntarily withdrawn from the institute after the commencement of the course and the seat vacated by her remained vacant for the entire tenure of the course, hence she was not entitled to any refund. However, learned counsel for complainant tried his level best to repel these arguments by stating that the Institution had registered 304 candidates for the course mentioned in the prospectus against the total seats of 300 and the seat vacated by complainant’ daughter was filled up later on, so OP was liable to refund the entire fee. 7. Here it is pertinent to mention that the District Forum rightly dealt with this issue of territorial jurisdiction in para-5 of the impugned order and observed that a part of cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh, therefore, the Forum had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter in question. The observation of the District Forum in that regard is produced as under ; “The OPs admitted in para 7 of the reply that the fee was received by them from the complainant at the camp office of the OP at Chandigarh. Annexure C-1 is the letter sent by the OPs to the complainant in which the Regional Office (Admissions) is mentioned to be existing in SCO 15, 2nd floor, Sector 26, Chandigarh. It is admitted that subsequently the head office was shifted from Chandigarh. The OPs have produced the application form (Annexure R-4) submitted by the complainant in which the online Test/GD Centre is said to be existing at Chandigarh. In this manner a part of cause of action accrued at Chandigarh and in view of section 11 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint can be filed at Chandigarh even if the OPs now do not have a branch office at Chandigarh.” In this view of the matter, as OP had set up a office at Chandigarh, admission form was submitted at Chandigarh, payment was received at Chandigarh, thus, a part of cause of action had also arisen at Chandigarh. Therefore, this point of OP regarding lack of jurisdiction is overruled. 8. Now adverting to the second contention with regard to refund of tuition fee and other amount charged by OP. It is admitted case of the complainant that her daughter attended the classes and occupied the hostel for the months of July,August and September,2007. The daughter of the complainant had voluntarily withdrawn from the institute after commencement of the course and the seat vacated by her remained vacant throughout the entire session period. In this regard, OP institute submitted affidavit of Captain (retd) Vasant Lavate ,Registrar stating therein that in the course of MeBA 227 candidates were enrolled against the sanctioned seats of 240 , in the course of MeBA-Bio 33 candidates were enrolled against the seats of 60 whereas in MMM 46 candidates were enrolled against sanctioned seats of 60. Thus, in this way total 306 candidates were enrolled against sanctioned seats of 360 out of which 286 had passed out. It is recited in the affidavit that the above figures are given on the basis of record maintained by the institute which is also submitted with the University of Pune, Maharashtra to which the said institute is affiliated. Para-4 of the said affidavit is relevant to be reproduced here which reads as under ; 4.That as per the records maintained by the Appellant Insitute there was no fresh admission after the departure of Ms.Sweena Arora from the Appellant institute on 10.9.2007 either in the 2 years full time MeBA (Masters in eBusiness Administration-Autonomous 2 years full time course) or in the MMM (Masters in Marketing Management-University of Pune’s 2 years full time course) for the batch of 2007-2009 and the said seat abandoned by the said Ms.Sweena Arora remained vacant till the passing out of the 2007- 2009 Batch in the year 2009.” 9. Thus, the seat vacated by Ms.Sweena Arora remained vacant throughout the entire course in both disciplines and further she had left the institute voluntarily, so she is not entitled to refund of tuition fee. In this context reference may be made to the Public Notice dated 23.4.2007 issued by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, the relevant abstract of which reads as under ; ““The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution/university to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.” 10. In the instant case, admittedly the complainant left the institute after the start of the course and as the seat vacated by her remained vacant throughout the session, so she is not entitled to refund of tuition fee etc. Further it is admitted case of the parties that OP had refunded Rs.10,000/- as security deposit and Rs.5,000/- as hostel deposit received by it on 14.7.2007 and 14.3.2007 respectively. OP had also obtained Rs.24,000/- as hostel rent for one year but since the daughter of the complainant occupied the hostel for three months ,so, OP was entitled to retain three months rent and was liable to refund the remaining amount of Rs.18,000/- as hostel rent which was not utilized by the complainant’s daughter and which could be allotted to any other student of the OP college after it was vacated by her. Rs.5000/- have already been refunded, so OP is liable to refund the remaining amount of Rs.13,000/-. 10. The Learned District Forum further allowed refund of Rs.5500/- which was received by OP vide receipt dated 28.7.2007 (Ex.C-14) as miscellaneous fee and it could not specify the object of this fee. OP institute was also held liable to refund Rs.20,000/- which it received as Placement and R deposit. The placement takes place only after the course is complete which in the present case was not completed by the complainant’s daughter. Similarly Rs.2418/- was received excess by the OP which it could not justify the retention of this amount, so the same was ordered to be refunded by the District Forum. 11. In view of the above discussion , we allow the appeal partly and direct OP to refund to the complainant Rs.13000/- the balance hostel fee + Rs.5500/- + Rs.20,000/- +2418/- =40918/- instead of Rs.65918/-. The amount of Rs.40918/- now shall be paid to the complainant within thirty days from the date copy of the order is received, failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% from the date of filing complaint till actual realization. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
