DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH ====== Complaint Case No.:1049 of 2008 Date of Institution: 24.07.2009 Date of Decision : 07.05.2010 Vishal Paul son of Shri Gulshan Kumar Paul r/o House No.2900-B, HUDA Colony, Sector 15, Panchkula. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. Swami Vivekanand Group of Institutes, Head Office SCO No.51-52, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh through its Director. 2. Swami Vivekanand Institute of Management and Technology, Chandigarh Patiala National Highway, Ram Nagar, Banur (Pb.) through its Principal. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Amar Chand, Adv. for complainant Sh.Harinder Kumar, Adv. for OP No.2. OP-1 exparte. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Vishal Paul has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Refund Rs.48,525/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till its realization. ii) Return the original certificates i.e. 10th Class (CBSE)+2 Certificate (CBSE), Character Certificate and Migration certificate. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iv) Pay a sum of Rs.6100/- as litigation expenses. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got admission in BCA for the session 2008-09 under Management Quota with OP-Institute. He deposited a sum of Rs.30,525/- as registration fee and Rs.18,000/- as transportation expenses. It has further been pleaded that the complainant visited the college for about 20 days but no class was taken by any of the teachers. According to the complainant, even the basic facilities such as class rooms etc. were not made available in the OP-Institute. So, for the reasons mentioned above and due to unavoidable other circumstances, the complainant surrendered the seat vide letter dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure C-3) and took admission in Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology, Banur. According to the complainant, as per letter of Punjab Technical University No.PTU/DA/2309 dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure C-4), OP-institute is bound to return the fee and original documents after deducting Rs.1000/- from the students. According to the complainant, he requested OPs to refund his fees and return the documents but to no effect. He also served OPs with the legal notice dated 25.11.2008 but the OPs failed to refund the fee of Rs.45,525/- and to return the original documents. According to the complainant, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OPs, it has been pleaded that the complainant left the course midway because of his own reasons and therefore, he is not entitled to refund of the fee. The allegations with regard to failure of the OPs to provide requisite amenities like class rooms etc have been vehemently denied by OPs. It has been pleaded that as per letter (Annexure C-4) only those candidates who have been admitted through centralized counseling are entitled to claim refund/transfer of fees after necessary deductions. According to Ops, as the complainant has got the admission under the Management quota, therefore, the said letter is not applicable to the complainant. It has further been pleaded that the complainant was called upon time and again by OP-2 for collecting the testimonials but he failed to do so. Thus, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. It has been argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the OP that from the letter (Annexure C-3) and from the pleadings of the parties himself, it is quite apparent that the Complainant left the Course, of his own, for his personal reasons. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. In these circumstances, the Complainant is not entitled to the refund of the fees. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has cited cases titled as “Pydah College Versus E. Mohan Rao & Anr., III(1998) CPJ 339” “Ramdeobaba Engineering College Vs. Sushant Yuvraj Rode & Anr., III(1994) CPJ 160 (NC)” and “Anshuman Das Gupta Vs. FIITJEE & Anr., IV (2008) CPJ 4”. To our mind, the argument advanced by the learned counsel is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the recent judgment titled as “Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, III (2009) CPJ 33 (NC)”, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:- “5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. He submitted that the student had withdrawn voluntarily and, therefore, there was no deficiency of service. The Petitioner’s School has shown excellent results. Hence, it is wrong to observe that their coaching was not upto the mark. He also submitted that one of the conditions imposed by their School which accepting lump sum fees for two years is that ‘refundability/ transferability of seat/ fee is not possible under any circumstances’. 6. The above condition is one sided and biased totally in favour of the Petitioner and against the principle of equity and natural justice and it is not a fair trade practice. The learned counsel quoted the judgment of this Commission in Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh Vs. Miss Gunita Virk, I(1996) CPJ 37 (NC), wherein it is held that Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal. 7. This judgment is 13 years old. Subsequent to this judgment this Commission in a catena of judgments has held that it is unjust to collect the Fees for the total period of the course. In Nipun Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC), Revision Petition No. 1336 of 2008, decided by this Commission on 7th November, 2008, after quoting the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission, it was held that the Institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee of Rs.1 lakh even after the student withdrew from their Institute. Further if a student leaves before attending a single day of the college or school, he is entitled for total refund except for a small registration fee, say Rs.1,000/-. Even the University Grants Commission had issued a public notice directing all the institutions to refund the money of the students for the period, they have not attended the college/ institution, the extracts of the public notice is reproduced in extenso. “It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC) that institutions and Universities including institutions deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students, and retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original. The institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates. The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/ Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students, which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheets, caste certificate and other documents in original. 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 wait-listed candidate 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. 1,000 (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. The Universities/institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The UGC shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions. Institutions/Universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them. This notice has been reiterated subsequently also.” 8. Therefore, we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.” Ratio of the case cited above is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the this case. In view of the ratio of the case cited above, the Complainant is entitled to the refund of the fees, after deducting the proportionate amount of the fees for the period the Complainant has attended the School. Withholding of original documents and certificates is also contrary to the instructions issued by the UGC. It also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the complainant is also entitled to the return of the documents submitted by him in original. 6. In view of above, the present complaint is hereby allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant at the time of admission after deducting the following: i) Rs.1000/- as per guidelines. ii) Proportionate fees upto the date of application for refund i.e. upto 19.08.2008. In addition to this, the Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation charges amounting to Rs.5,000/-. The OPs are also directed to return to the complainant all the original documents submitted by him at the time of admission. 7. The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall pay the above said amount (excluding cost of litigation) along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.07.2009, till the date of realization, along with the cost of litigation mentioned above. 8. Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced sd/- 07.05.2010 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER ‘Dutt’
DISTRICT FORUM – II | | CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 1049 OF 2009 | | PRESENT: None. Dated the 7th day of May, 2010 | O R D E R Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. |
| | | (Madhu Mutneja) | (Lakshman Sharma) | | Member | President | |
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
