DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 867/13
Shri Raghav Bhargava
304, Fancy Society
19, Vasundhra Enclave,
Delhi – 110 096 ….Complainant
Vs.
Thapar University
Thapar University Campus
Post Bo. No. 32
Patiala – 147 004, Punjab ….Opponent
Date of Institution: 17.10.2013
Judgment Reserved for :16.09.2016
Judgment Passed on :17.09.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
The complainant Shri Raghav Bhargava has filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against Thapar University (OP) for refund of fee.
2. Complainant Shri Raghav Bhargava, on seeing the advertisement for admission of Thapar University, Patiala, filled the registration form and sent the same on 16.05.2011 by speed post to In-charge, Admission Cell, Thapar University, alongwith a fee of Rs. 1,500/-. He was identified a probable candidate after the first list and he deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, around 21.06.2011, in cash, in State Bank of Patiala, Sector-1, Noida, vide journal no. 474885. On 29.06.2011, he found his name in second list for admission in ‘Computer Science’ discipline, Chandigarh campus of OP. On 01.07.2011, he deposited an amount of Rs. 90,250/- in State Bank of Patiala, Sector-1, Noida, vide journal no. 1164920. On 07.07.2011, he found his name in the third list, upgraded to ‘Electrical Engineering’ discipline. On 17.07.2011, he was called to Patiala by OP for checking original documents. There, he got formal admission in ‘Electrical Engineering’ discipline. On 6th, 7th August, 2011, he was called for personal/spot counselling to Patiala and was upgraded to ‘Electronics & Communications’ discipline. He studied in Patiala only for one day in ‘Electrical Engineering’ discipline on 08.08.2011 and for some days in ‘Electronics & Communications’ discipline upto 26.08.2011.
He has further stated that he got selected in Delhi Technological University, Delhi, on 30.08.2011 in B.Tech (Engineering Physics). He withdrew himself from OP institution since he could not have afforded study, living and boarding expenses at Patiala. He requested officials of OP to refund the fees deposited. He received refund of only Rs. 46,750/- by instrument no. 346054 from OP and deposited in his bank account in Delhi on 24.10.2011. He requested various times to OP for refund of balance amount, but all in vein. Lastly, he received a letter NO TU/Admn./2646 dated 05.03.2012 stating that as published in OP’s prospectus for the season 2011-12, a candidate withdrawing his seat between the date of final counselling and upto 30.09.2011, was entitled for refund such as: 50% Tuition Fee, 50% Development Fee, University Security, Alumni Fee etc. It was stated by OP that since complainant withdrew himself after final counselling i.e. on 12.09.2011, he was entitled for refund of only 50% fee.
He has further stated that the seat left by the complainant did not remain vacant and was ultimately filled up, therefore, OP was not entitled to deduct 50% of the total fee as per UGC rules. He has further stated that as per RTI query, OP informed that no seat remained vacant during the semester. It has further been stated that the complainant made a representation on 20.092012 to OP for refund of balance fee after deducting amount for the period, he studied. Last was on 28.08.2013/15.09.2013. He demanded the amount as Rs. 54,500/-. Thus, it has been stated that the complainant has not received any refund of fee. Hence, he has filed the complaint praying for refund of Rs. 54,500/- with interest @18% alongwith Rs. 15,000/- compensation on account of mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. In the Written Statement, OP has taken various pleas such as jurisdiction as no cause of action arose at Delhi; complainant being a student was not a consumer; all disputes were subject to the jurisdiction of Patiala Courts; no admission was allowed after the cut of date of 07.08.2011 during the first semester, except the vacant seats were filled in the next semester; the candidates admitted in the next semester were not charged any fee for the first semester; the complainant remained on the rolls of the university till the acceptance of the withdrawal application by the complainant, which was received on 12.09.2011. Reasons given in the application were “Got Admission in Delhi Technological University”. The request of the complainant was received on 12.09.2011, which was processed and an amount of Rs. 46,750/- was refunded as per rule 11.6 of the prospectus as well as admission letters. The terms of refund were reproduced in the admission letters dated 17.07.2011 and 06.08.2011 and those conditions were accepted by the complainant by signing the said letters. They have replied all the letters, written by the complainant.
It has further been stated that refund was made as per guidelines of UGC. The complainant withdrew the seat after the start of classes and close of admissions to the university. Other pleas have also been denied.
4. No Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant.
5. In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined himself, who has deposed on affidavit. He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint. He has filed on record a copy of extract from the bank account and receipt sending the form (Annex. C/1&C/2), copy of journal number 1164920 of the concerned bank (Annex. C/3), copy of proof of deposit of refund in bank passbook (Annex. C/4), copy of letter no.TU/Admn/2646 dated 05.03.2012, sent by OP (Annex. C/5), copy of UGC rules (Annex. C/6), copy of letter in response to query no. TU/Admn/RTI/Bhargav dated 06.08.2012 (Annex. C/7) and copy of representations made to the University (Annex. C/8 &C/9).
6. In defence, OP has examined Dr.Dilip Kumar Patnaik, Registrar, Thapar University, who has deposed on affidavit. He has deposed the facts, which have been stated in the WS. He has got exhibited judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshi and another vs. Ellen Charitable Trust and others (Ex. OP-1), copy of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjit Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159 (Ex. OP-2), copy of judgement of State Consumer Redressal Commission, Punjab in Ravi Arora, F.A. No. 1564 of 2012 (Ex. OP-3), copy of another judgement of State Consumer Redressal Commission, Punjab, F.A. No. 1578 of 2012, decided on 28.11.2013 (Ex. OP-4), copy of judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Nikhil Sheokhand vs, Union of India and Thapar University, CWP No. 12267 of 2010 (Ex. OP-5), judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director Health Services, Haryana and others, Civil Appeal no. 5476 of 2013 (Ex. OP-6), relevant extracts of prospectus (Ex. OP-7), copy of extracts of clause 12.2 of the prospectus (Ex. OP-8), copy of application for withdrawal of admission (Ex. OP-9), relevant extracts of rule 11.6 (Ex. OP-10), terms of refund reproduced in admission letter dated 17.07.2011 and also 06.08.2011, which were signed by the complainant (Ex. OP-11)(colly), and details of vacant seats during the first semester (Ex. OP-12).
7. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant, Shri Sanjeev Jain, Dy. Registrar of OP University, and have perused the material placed on record. It has been argued on behalf of OP that this Forum was not having jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen in Delhi; complainant was not a consumer; the refund made, was as per rules; 37 seats remained vacant and no deficiency was pointed out by the complainant in his complaint on the part of OP.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that this Forum was having jurisdiction as the cause of action has arisen in Delhi; the complainant was a consumer; refund was not made as per rules; no seat remained vacant as per reply given through RTI query.
Both the parties have made reference to various judgements, which will be referred wherever the need arises.
The first and foremost argument, which has been advanced on behalf of OP, has been that this Forum was not having jurisdiction as “no cause of action” has arisen at Delhi. He has pointed out that university was located at Patiala, the admission was given at Patiala and the amount was deposited for payment to the university at Patiala. The bank, which sent the amount online, was the agent of the student and not of the university. The university had given the student, the facility of online transfer of amount, which does not create territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, online payment was deposited in the account of the university at Patiala.
On the contrary, counsel for the complainant has argued that the “cause of action” has arisen in Delhi, as the complainant sent his duly filled form by speed post to OP on 16.05.2011 to Admission Cell, Thapar University, alongwith fee of Rs. 1,500/-; the draft was purchased in Delhi on 09.05.2011 from Canara Bank, Vasundhra Enclave, Delhi-96; deposited earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- around 21.06.2011 in cash in State Bank of Patiala, Sector-1, Noida vide Journal no. 474885; deposited Rs. 90,250/- in cash in State Bank of Patiala, Sector-1, Noida vide Journal no. 1164920 and deposited refund amount of Rs. 46,750/- in his bank account in Delhi on 24.10.2011. However, Shri Sanjeev Jain, Dy. Registrary of OP University have stated that the facts to which the reference has been made by Ld. Counsel for the complainant do not constitute cause of action, but these are the events in the form of evidence to prove the fact of admission.
To ascertain, whether the “cause of action” has arisen at Delhi, what “cause of action” means have to be ascertained. “Cause of action” has not been defined in the Consumer Protection Act or the Code of Civil Procedure,but the same has been explained and analysed from time to time by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Every fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgement of the court constitutes “cause of action”. “Cause of action” does not comprise every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove [Read & Brown (1889) 22 QBD 128]. “Cause of Action” does not comprise every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact, which is necessary to be proved. Evidence of a fact should not be confused with the fact itself. “Cause of action” in its widest sense means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit and in its restricted sense it means the circumstances forming the infringement of the right or the immediate occasion for the action (Niranjan vs. Union of India, AIR 1960 Cal 391).
8. In the light of this settled definition of “cause of action”, it has to be seen whether from the facts, the cause of action has arisen in Delhi or not. Here, the facts, which the complainant has to prove, was with regard to refund of his admission fee. Whether the facts to which the complainant has made reference constitutes fact, which is to be proved or is a piece of evidence to prove the fact is to be noted. It is a fact that the complainant has taken admission in Thapar University, Patiala, withdrew himself and asked for refund of the fees.
In para 6 of the complaint, he has stated that on 17.07.2011, complainant was called at Patiala by OP for checking of original documents. He got formal admission in ‘Electrical Engineering’ discipline.
In para 7, it has been stated that on 6th-7th August, 2011, he was called for personal/spot counselling at Patiala and was upgraded to ‘Electronics Communications’ discipline.
In para 8, he has further stated that he studied in Patiala in ‘Electrical Engineering’ discipline on 08.08.2011 and then some days in ‘Electronics Communications’ discipline upto 26.08.2011.
Thus, from these averments, it is noted that these are the facts, which have occurred at Patiala as the complainant was called at Patiala for checking the documents, personal/spot counselling and he studied at Patiala in ‘Electrical Engineering’ and ‘Electronics Communications’ discipline. His version that he sent the registration form by speed post to OP on 16.05.2011 alongwith fee of Rs. 1,500/- by way of draft, purchased in Delhi on 09.05.2011 from Canara Bank, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi; deposited earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- on 21.06.2011 in cash in State Bank of Patiala, Sector-1, Noida as well as deposited Rs. 90,250/- on 01.07.2011 in cash in State Bank of Patiala, Sector-1, Noida, are the events which constitute evidence to prove the fact of admission of the complainant in Thapar University, These events do not constitute cause of action, but are evidence of a fact that is admission of the complainant in Thapar University.
The fact that Thapar University has been based at Patiala; the complainant got admitted and studied at Patiala; the cause of action have arisen at Patiala and not at Delhi. Therefore, the Delhi courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thus, this Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Not only this, Clause 14.10 of the prospectus states that all disputes will be subject to jurisdiction of the civil courts at Patiala city only. The complainant took admission on the basis of this prospectus and as per Clause 14.10, civil courts at Patiala were having only the jurisdiction. On this score also, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, the first argument advanced on behalf of the complainant that this Forum have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint does not survive.
Coming to the second limb of argument, whether the complainant was a consumer or not, Dy. Registrar of Thapar University (OP) have relied upon a judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshi and another (Supra), where it has been laid down that education was not a commodity. Educational institutions were not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986. Though, counsel for OP have made reference to other judgements also, but they are not referred in order to avoid burden on the judgement.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has made reference to judgement of Krishna Institute of Education & Technology vs. Ms. Ravneet Kaur, Revision Petition No, 1777 of 2012 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shri Dhirendra Kumar (Dead) & Ors. (Supra) and Siddharth Chaplot (Supra). The first Revision Petition have analysed the fact whether the petitioner was a statutory board. The same was not attracted to the facts of the case. In two other judgements i.e. Shri Dhirendra Kumar (Dead) & Ors. (Supra) and Siddharth Chaplot (Supra), reference has been made to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshi and another (Supra), where it was observed:
“In view of the judgement of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010 (11) SCC 159 wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgements has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
Thus, the fact remains that the judgements on which Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance have made reference to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshi and another (Supra), where it has been laid down that educational institutions were not providing any kind of service and in matters of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshi and another (Supra) hold the field of law and as per that judgement, educational institutions were not providing any kind of service and in matters of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the light of this judgement, Thapar University, who is an educational institution, cannot be said to be providing any service and in matter of refund of fee, the complainant cannot approach to the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant for refund of fee cannot be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The arguments advanced on behalf of OP holds good. However, the arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant have no force.
9. Further in para 9 of the complaint, it has been stated that in the meantime, the complainant got selected in Delhi Technological University, Delhi on 30.08.2011, B.Tech (Engineering Physics). Therefore he immediately withdrew himself from OP institution, since he could not have afforded study, living and boarding expenses at Patiala. Further in para 10, it has been stated that the complainant requested number of times with the officials of the OP to refund the fees deposited by the complainant. Ultimately the complainant received refund of only Rs. 46,750/- by instrument no 346054, from OP and deposited in his bank account in Delhi on 24.10.2011. From the reading of these paras of the complaint, it is noticed that the complainant voluntarily withdrew his admission, having got selected in Delhi Technological University, Delhi, stating the reason that he could not have afforded study, living and boarding expenses at Patiala. He got the refund and encashed it. The fact that the complainant withdrew himself from Thapar University voluntarily and got the refund amount of Rs. 46,750/-, which was through instrument no. 346054 and encashed, the complainant no more remains a consumer.
The fact that the complaint of the complainant does not survive on the grounds of jurisdiction and the complainant was not a consumer, there is no point in going to the other points, raised by the complainant on merits.
10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen at Delhi and the complainant was not a consumer. Therefore, his complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, his complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to seek his grievances redressed before the proper forum or civil court as per law.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
