BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 966 of 10.11.2010 

                                                Decided on:          26.9.2011

Abhishek Sharma s/o Ashok Sharma, house No.605,Samrala Road,Gugga Mari Street, Khanna.

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

                                      Versus

1.                 Thapar University Patiala through its Director.

2.                 Registrar Thapar University, Patiala.

                                                                             ----------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.A.S.Tiwana, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.Vijay Mohan Gupta, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant had got admission in MCA with op no.1 on 17.7.2010 through counselling. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,750/- with op no.1.

2.       The complainant had got a job immediately after the deposit of the fee, in respect of which the complainant had conveyed op no.1 with a request to refund the fees. However, his request was turned down on the ground that the same was barred by limitation . However, he was returned the amount of Rs.5500/- vide cheque, which was accepted by the complainant under protest. No explanation or reason could be furnished by the ops in not having returned the balance amount out of Rs.1,00,750/-. Accordingly 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 refund him the balance amount out of Rs.1,00,750/- deposited by him , to pay him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops and also to award him a sum of Rs.10000/-as litigation expenses.

3.       On notice, ops appeared and filed the written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the complainant was admitted in MCA on 17.7.2010  in the counselling held for this purpose and the complainant had deposited the requisite fee of Rs.1,00,750/- .

4.       It is denied if the complainant had got a job immediately after admission in MCA. The information regarding the withdrawal of the seat was given by the complainant to op no.1 on 26.8.2010 and the reason  for vacating the seat was migration to other  University. As per the letter of appointment the complainant had been offered the placement prior to May 2010. Either the said placement letter is fake or the complainant did not want to join the job after BCA and wanted to study further in the prestigious institution i.e. Thapar University, Patiala. The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands.

5.       It is further averred that a student is entitled  to the refund of the fee in case he vacates the seat before the last counselling. The last counselling was held on 2.8.2010. After the last counselling 7 seats in the MCA programme had remained vacant which could not be filled up and therefore the complainant is not entitled to any refund except the amount already paid to him i.e. Rs.5500/-. After denouncing the averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence,Ex.C1, his sworn affidavit, alongwith documents, Exs.C2 to C6 and his learned counsel closed evidence.

7.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence Ex.R1 the sworn affidavit of J.Ernest Samuel Ratnakumar, Registrar, of op no.1 alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R5 and closed their evidence.

8.       The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

9.       Ex.C2, is the copy of the admission letter dated 2.8.2010 issued by the Chairman Admission Committee of Thapar University, Patiala i.e. op no.2 to the complainant which interalia provides, “ it is reiterated that in case a seat,  vacated by a student, gets filled in the subsequent round(s) of admission, the balance amount after deduction of Rs.1000/- from the total fee deposited will be refunded, otherwise the university security, caution money and alumni fee will only be refunded. All outstanding dues will, however, be recovered before such refund is made”.

10.     The complainant has produced in evidence,Ex.C5, the sworn affidavit of one Gurdeep Singh s/o Harjit Singh R/o H.No.46, Gali No.23,Anand Nagar-B,Patiala that he applied for the admission in MCA Regular in Thapar University,Patiala. He had appeared in the entrance test and counselling but was not successful in getting the admission but he had approached Thapar University  Patiala on 5.8.2010 to get admission in MCA because some students had left the course and seats in MCA in Regular had fallen vacant but the University refused to give him the admission against the vacant seat of the MCA regular.

11.     It was submitted by Sh.Vijay Mohan Gupta, the learned counsel for the ops that the affidavit,Ex.C5 is a manipulation on the part of the complainant because no such fact was averred by the complainant in the complaint. Moreover, it was submitted that no record has been produced alongwith affidavit,Ex.C5 to show that Gurdeep Singh had actually taken the entrance test for MCA Regular 2010 and that he had  qualified the same. The mere fact that Gurdeep Singh could not get the admission despite the last counselling having taken place on 2.8.2010 would mean that he had not qualified entrance test. It was submitted by Sh.Gupta, the learned counsel for the ops that 7 students had left the admission in MCA after the final counselling held on August 2,2010 which were lying vacant till 7.1.2011 and that the same were to remain vacant till the completion of the programme for the same. In this regard he made a reference to Ex.R2, the certificate given by op no.2 as on 7.1.2011.

12.     Then it was submitted by Sh.Gupta, that in the matter of the refund of the fee etc. the ops are governed by the instructions issued by All India Council for Technical Education, in respect of which Advertisement No:-AICTE/DPG/03(01)/2008 was also issued in the daily vernacular including the one,Ex.R3, which interalia provides, “In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given an 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/-( Rupees One thousand 0nly) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programmed. It would not be permissible for institutions and universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificates in original. 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”. In this regard a reference may also be made to Registrar, Andhra University, Vishakhapatham and Anr. Versus Janjanam Jagedeesh 2010(2)CPC 619 of the  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in which reference is made to the citation Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha(2009)8 SCC 483= 2009(3)CPC 217 S.C. in which reference was made to the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, the same having been quoted 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.”      

13.     On the other hand, Sh.A.S.Tiwana, the learned counsel for the complainant pressed into service the citation Ramdeo Baba Kamala Nehru Engineering College versus Sanjay Kumar 2000(0)GLHEL-SC23522 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Here it is suffice to note that the said citation can not be applied to the facts of the present case because the dispute was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Maharashtra on the basis of an order of the Govt. of Maharashtra, which admittedly governed the payment of tuition fees and which was referred to as Annexure P1.

14.     We are governed in the matter of refund of the tuition fee etc. as per the guidelines issued by the All India Council of Technical Education as discussed above.

15.     Since the seat vacated by the complainant had remained vacant and could not be filled up, the complainant was entitled as per the prospectus

( copy Ex.R5) the refund of University security, caution money and alumni fee which has already been paid to the complainant. We do not find any substance in the evidence led by the complainant that one Gurdeep Singh was interested to seek admission in MCA, who had approached op no.1 in this regard on 5.8.2010 although earlier he could not get the admission despite having taken the entrance test and joined the counselling. The very fact that said Gurdeep Singh could not get the admission upto the last counselling held on 2.8.2010 would go to show that he was not in the list of the candidates who could be given the admission through counselling and therefore, the said part of the evidence can be said to have been manipulated by the complainant. As an analysis of the aforesaid facts and evidence of the parties, it would appear that there are no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:26.9.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President