THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/10/10 of 4.1.2010 Decided on 25.8.2010 Iqbal Singh Grewal minor son of Sh.D.P.S.Grewal, resident of House No.534/2, Street No.2, Mehal Mubark Colony, Sangrur under the guardianship of D.P.S Grewal, Natural guardian being father ….Complainant. Versus Thapar University, Patiala through its Chairman. ….Opposite party. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986 QUORUM Sh. Inderjit Singh, President Sh. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member Smt Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant : Sarv.Sh.Sanjeev Goyal& Dheeraj Puri Advocates For the opposite party : Sh.V.M. Gupta Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT Complainant, Iqbal Singh Grewal has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended up to date(herein after referred to as the act),against the opposite party , fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint . 2 As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complaint is like this:- That complainant passed his 10+2 Examination in Non- Medical(Engineering esteem) in March-2009 under C.B.S.E New Delhi from Shaheed Bhai Diala Ji Senior Secondary School, Longowal , District Sangrur(Punjab). That the complainant also appeared in A.I.E.E.E.2009(All India Engineering Entrance Examination-2009) and secured All India Rank 31568 under General Category. That the complainant for getting admission in Engineering Colleges, applied in the following institutions as per his preference:- (i) Engineering Colleges under Punjab University, Chandigarh on the basis of A.I.E.E.E.2009 rank(manual counseling) (ii) Thapar University, Patiala, on the basis of A.I.E.E.E-2009 rank(on the basis of Online Counseling) at Sangrur. However , the complainant got admission in the college of opposite party on the basis of online counciling in Industrial Engineering + M.B.A. (5 year course) under Punjab Quota. Complainant deposited fee of Rs.78,925/- vide demand draft No.907532 dated 24.07.2009 of State Bank of Patiala, Branch Sangrur and Rs.10,000/- vide S.B.O.P. Sangrur Bank Challan No.J-66646 dated 19.6.2009. Thus total fee of Rs.88,925/- was deposited towards first semester. That despite the fact that the seats were lying vacant in the core Branches (Mechanical., Electrical, Civil etc), the complainant’s branch was not upgraded by the opposite party on the basis of his AIEEE Rank despite repeated verbal requests of the complainant and the opposite party always put off the matter on one pretext or the other and there was no other option with the complainant but to get admission in any other college, if granted especially in the college and university of his first preference. That Punjab University, Chandigarh held 3rd counseling for admission to its Engineering Colleges on 17.8.2009 and 18.8.2009 and in the said counciling the complainant got admission in Mechanical
Engineering and M.B.A Branch and deposited Semester fee on 18.8.2009 towards fee and joined University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chandigarh as the branch allocated is of the choice and first preference of complainant. That complainant obtained the admission in the college of opposite party on 25.7.2009 and attended the college up to 16.8.2009 and on 17.8.2009 the complainant requested the opposite party for refund of his entire fees after deduction of fees for the attendance period and submitted the prescribed proforma in this respect for refund of fee. But strange enough that the opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice and refunded only an amount of Rs.5500/- out of Rs.88,925/- vide cheque No.089356 towards refund of alumni and security which is part of the entire fees deposited by complainant. However, the opposite party is duty bound to refund the entire fees of the complainant. The cheque of Rs.5500/- was sent by the opposite party to the complainant through registered post at the address of Sangrur mentioned in the heading of the complainant. The complainant also wrote a letter dated 4.9.2009 to the opposite party to refund the balance fees, but in vain. The complainant also made request to the opposite party on telephone at Sangrur. So in this manner, the services of the opposite party are very much deficient. . Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is admitted that the complaint passed his 10+2 examination in Non-Medical, through CBSE , New Delhi and at that time he was a student of Shaheed Bhai Diala Ji Public School, Longowal, as per the copy of the certificate attached with the admission form. It is correct that the complainant appeared in AIEEE 2009 and secured All India Rank 31568 in general category. That the complainant made an application for admission on the basis of ‘On Line Counciling from the website of the opposite party. The complainant was admitted in Industrial Engineering + MBA ( 5 years course) against the Punjab seats and he sent the fees by way of demand draft to the opposite party at Patiala amounting to Rs.78, 925/-. The amount of Rs.10,000/- was deposited by the complainant on line in the account of the opposite party through State Bank of Patiala at Sangrur. The contentions of the complainant that seats were lying vacant in the core branches (mechanical, electrical, civil etc.) the complainant branch was not upgraded is wrong. As per the regulations governing the admissions to the opposite party, the whole procedure is given in the prospectus. The complainant was admitted in MBA(dual degree) Industrial Engineering on 25.7.209 as per his merit and order of preference of discipline. Moreover as per the rules of the admission no change of branch is permissible except on readmission for change of discipline given at 1.5 on page 10 and 1.6 on page 11. The complainant was at liberty to appear for the test for change of branch/admission to the opposite party only if he would have been a student of some affiliated technical institution as per clause 1.6 . But he did not avail the same and did not appear in the competitive examination held in December, 2009 by the opposite party. Since the complainant had left the University, clause 1.5 was not applicable to him. In all the councilings , the branches were upgraded and allotted as per the AIEEE rank and order of choices filled by the candidates. The complainant gave the choices in his admission form . There was no question of any request as the admission was as per the rules and regulations and whatever branch was available of the choice of the complainant, that was offered to him and he was at liberty to accept the same or not. The contention of the complainant is correct that he got registered with the opposite party on25.7.2009 and attended classes up to 16.8.2009.It is also correct that the complainant requested for the refund of fee but his contention that he applied on 17.8.2009 is wrong. He submitted the application on 25.8.2009 which was entertained and was decided according to rules and he was given the refund of the amount whatever was available as per the rules. It is wrong that there is any unfair trade practice as alleged. However it is correct that Rs.5500/- were refunded towards the alumni fee and security. It is wrong that the opposite party is bound to refund the whole of the amount deposited by the complainant. The complainant was not entitled to any other refund as per the rules. As per the conditions given in the prospectus at page no.21 vide item no.11.6, it has been provided as under:- In case a seat, vacated by a student, gets filled in the subsequent round(s) of admission , the balance amount after the deduction of Rs.1000/- from the total fee deposited will be refunded, otherwise University security, caution money and alumni fee will only be refunded. All outstanding dues will however, be recovered before such refund is made. As the complainant got admission and attended classes and vacated the seat only on 25.8.2009, the seat fell vacant only after the last counseling in person which was held on 3.8.2009. The seat vacated by the complainant is still lying vacant because after the fifth counseling there could be no admission. The complainant has wrongly stated that he wrote a letter on 4.9.2009 as alleged. It is also wrong that complainant made any request on telephone from Sangrur. It is wrong that there was/is any deficiency in service by the opposite party. In all 64 seats remained vacant in different streams with the opposite party which were later on filled on 9.1.2010 and the students who appeared in the competitive examination held by the opposite party on 27.12.2009. The students were admitted in the second semester against the vacant seats of first semester. For all intents and purposes, the seats remained vacant in the first semester for which the fee was charged from the complainant. The contention of the complainant that he requested number of times to opposite party to refund the entire fee is wrong; no such request was ever received. The complainant is not entitled to refund of any other amount because even as per the letter dated 23.4.2007 issued by the UGC/AICTE, if a student leaves after joining the course and the seat is consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institute will return the fee with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent wherever applicable . There is no provision that the whole of the fees is to be refunded after proportionate deductions if the seat falls vacant and is not filled up. In the present case also, the admissions were closed on 3.8.2009 and even after that two seats are lying vacant under this category. As the complainant is not entitled to refund as claimed, there is no question of payment of any interest. The complainant is also not entitled to any damages or damage or Rs.50,000/- because the action of the opposite party is as per the rules and regulations accepted by the complainant at the time of admission as contained in his application form . The complainant is stopped from claiming any benefit which is not available to him under the rules. As the complaint is false and frivolous, the complainant is liable to compensate the opposite party for the expenses and harassment meted out to the opposite party . The opposite party claims Rs.55,000/- for the same . All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complainant be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The opposite party has filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The public notice Ex.R.8 dated 23.4.2007 of University Grant Commission, New Delhi would show that:- “ 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 processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/-, shall be refunded and returned by the University/Institution 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 learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the case of the complainant has been admitted by the opposite party as such the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.83425/- after deducting Rs.5500/- as already paid by the opposite party to the complainant. Admittedly the complainant got admission in the institutions of the opposite party on the bases of online counseling in Industrial Engineering plus MBA(5 years course) under Punjab Quota . The perusal of the receipt Ex.C9 dated 25.7.2009 would show that the complainant had deposited Rs.78925/- vide demand draft No.907532 dated 24.7.2009 of State Bank of Patiala, Branch Sangrur with the opposite party and Rs,10,000/- vide State Bank of Patiala Sangrur Bank Challan No.J-66646 dated 19.6.2009 Ex.C11. The opposite party refunded only an amount of Rs.5500/- out of Rs.88,925/- vide cheque No.089356 towards refund of alumni and security which is part of the entire fees deposited by complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite party has stated that the complainant got admission in under graduate course in the branch of Industrial Engineering plus MBA and remained studying up to 16.8.2009. He vacated the seat after the final counseling and during the said semester 64 seats remained vacant in different streams and which could not be filled during the entire semester. He has further contended that in the present case provisions as laid down in Ex.R8 do not apply because the complainant was admitted in under graduate course and thereafter no counciling or admission was held as such the seat vacated by the complainant remained unfilled . He has further relied on the chart , Ex.R7 showing the number of vacant seats in each category/branch with the opposite party. He has further contended that these seats were filled up in the second semester only and has further contended that complainant is not entitled to any other refund except already made to him . 7. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has contended that the complainant had requested the refund of fee vide application on 25.8.2009, which was entertained and was decided according to rules and the complainant was given the refund of the amount whatsoever was available as per the rules. He has further contended that Rs.5500/- were refunded towards the alumni fee and security and the complainant is not entitled to any other refund as per rules . He has further contended that as per condition given in the prospectus Ex.C12, it has been provided as under :- “In case a seat, vacated by a student, gets filled in the subsequent round(s) of admission , the balance amount after the deduction of Rs.1000/- from the total fee deposited will be refunded, otherwise University security, caution money and alumni fee will only be refunded. All outstanding dues will however, be recovered before such refund is made”. He has further contended that the complainant got admission and attended the classes and vacated the seat only on 25.8.2009, the seat fell vacant only after the last counseling. The seat vacated by the complainant was filled only in 2nd semester. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any other amount except already made to him . 8. As per the notification , Ex.R8 dated 23.4.2007 the entire fee collected from the student after deduction of processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- shall be refunded and returned by the University/Institution to the student withdrawing from the programme . As per the notification Ex.R8 if a student leaves after joining the course and if seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deduction of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent where applicable. In the present case according to the own admission of the opposite party the seats which remained vacant as per the chart, Ex.C7 were later on filled, up meaning thereby the seat vacated by the complainant was subsequently filled up and therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund of the fee with proportionate deduction of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent. The opposite party is bound to refund the entire fee collected from the complainant after a deduction of proportionate fee . The non refund of the fee amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 9. In the result we allow the complaint partly and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.46375/-(88925/--37050/- being the proportionate deductions of monthly fee from July 2009 to 16.9.2009+ Rs.5500/- already refunded vide cheque No.089356) to the complainant along with interest @7% per annum from the date of deposit till payment with another sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation inclusive of costs for harassment, inconvenience and mental torture within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated: 25-08-2010 President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
