BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/820 of 17.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          29.8.2011

Parvinder Singh son of Shamsher Singh, aged about 24 years, resident of village Maghanian,Tehsil Budhalada, District Mansa.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Swami Vivekananda Institute of Engineering & Technology, through its Principal, Situated  at village Ram Nagar, Near Gian Sagar Hospital, Rajpura-Banur Highway, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala.

2.                 Director,Swami Vivekanand  of Engineering & Technology, through its Principal, Situated  at village Ram Nagar, Near Gian Sagar Hospital, Rajpura-Banur Highway, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala.

3.                 Punjab Technical University,Jallandhar through its Vice Chancellor

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Jaspreet Singh,Advocate

For opposite parties:     None

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                  The complainant got admission in first year of MBA in 2008 in the second counselling with op no.1 and deposited Rs.43480/- as  fee vide receipt No.6237 dated 17.9.2008.

2.       Thereafter, the complainant got the admission in Punjabi University Campus under the rural category in the counselling in the general category. Thereafter, the complainant approached ops no.1&2 for the refund of the fee but to no effect.

3.       It is averred that since the complainant had got the admission in Punjabi University campus through counselling, the complainant had a right to get the admission fee refunded by the ops having vacated his seat in the same very counselling. The ops issued a cheque for Rs.6000/- only, which was bounced and later on they issued another  cheque for the said amount. They assured to make the payment of the balance amount of Rs.37480/- but the ops having failed to pay the same, the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to pay Rs.37480/- as the amount of the balance fee, Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation for the harassment and mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops and also to provide him Rs.5000/- as expenses of litigation.

4.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the complainant had got the admission with op no.1 in MBA for the session 2008-09 but he had left the course after having joined the same having retained the seat for more than one month on 20.10.2008.The complainant can not claim the refund of the fee as per the instructions and the guidelines issued by the All India Council for Technical Education  which provide that the “if the seat surrendered by the student is filled up by the admission given to another student, in that event after deducting the process charges, the institute has to return the fee but in case the seat surrendered by the student remains vacant fr the whole of the academic session the student can not claim the refund of the fee.

5.       It is averred by the ops that the complainant never informed the ops regarding his having surrendered the seat as it is no where disclosed in the affidavit filed by him that he had got the admission in another institute. It is also the plea taken up by the ops that the seat surrendered by the complainant had remained vacant for the whole of the session. The complainant was made the payment of Rs.6000/-by way of a cheque. The same having bounced fresh cheque was issued .  After denouncing the other averments of the complaint going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.                 In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C7 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

7.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Paramjit Singh, Principal of op no.1 alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R3 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

8.       The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, none having appeared on behalf of the ops  and gone through the evidence on record.

 9.      The complainant  has not made an averment in the complaint as to when he had surrendered the seat with the ops no.1&2 in respect of his admission got by him in MBA on 17.9.2008.The complainant has produced,Ex.C3, the copy of application dated 22.7.2009 to have been moved by him before op no.2 having disclosed that he had got the admission in 2008-09 in MBA having deposited Rs.43480/- vide receipt no.6237 dated 18.9.2008.He got admission in MBA with Punjabi University under rural quota. He had contacted Mr.Ramanjit Singh, in respect of the refund of his fee. He had not attended any class in the institute. He was promised that the amount will be refunded after deducting Rs.1000/-.He has also produced

 the photo copies of the similar applications dated 28.8.2009,Ex.C4 & 5.2.2010,Ex.C5. The complainant has not produced any document to show as to when he had surrendered the seat in the MBA with the ops no.1&2.

10.     On the other hand, it is the positive plea taken up by the ops that the complainant had retained the seat for a period of one month when he surrendered the seat on 20.10.2008. It is also their positive plea that the seat surrendered by the complainant had remained vacant through out the academic session.

11.     In the case of the citation Registrar, Andhra University, Vishakhapatham and Anr. Versus Janjanam Jagedeesh 2010(2)CPC 619, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, NewDelhi has made a reference to the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, which is the Apex body to regulate the activities of the various Universities/Colleges vide a public notice which reads as under:

“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 the 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 sheet, 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.1000/-( one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned  by the institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programmee. 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.”      

12.     Since the seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant as per the plea taken up by the ops and the same having been corroborated by the sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 of Paramjit Singh, Principal of op no.1 through out the academic session 2008-09, the complainant could not ask for the refund of the fee. He was rightly returned the security amount of Rs.6000/- as shown in the receipt,Ex.C8 and he is not entitled to the refund of the semester fee deposited by him vide,Ex.C8.Consequently, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:29.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President