FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant No.-1 was selected in B.Com (H) in day session with OP Institute and she deposited Rs. 39,200/- towards admission fees including other charges for sessions 2017-18 on 12.06.2017 against Challan No. 001704 through Federal Bank, Bhowanipore Branch. Complainant No.-2 being the father of complainant No.1 informed the OP that his daughter had been to Lucknow on account of illness of her mother and is unable to pursue the said course. Accordingly, complainant No.-2requested the OP vide letter dated 24.06.2017 to refund the admission fees including other charges but such letter was unattended. Finding no other alternative, complainants issued legal notice dated 05.03.2018 which was duly replied by the OP through their Advocate quoted the UGC Notification and refused to refund the fees including other charges. The OP / Institute did not refund the amount in view of UGC notification dated 06.12.2016. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.Hence, the consumer complaint hasbeen filed by the complainants for refund of Rs. 39,200/- along with interest, compensation and litigation cost.
The OP Institute has contested the case by filing WV denying all the material allegations made out in the complaint petition. The specific case of the OP is that the complainant No.-1 was admitted to their institution on 14.06.2017 on basis of first merit list and the Institute received a letter dated 17.07.2017 for withdrawal of complainant No. 1 from B.Com (H) course. Complainant No. -1 did not withdrawal her admission within 30 days from the last date of admission and as per UGC circular vide Memo No. D.O. 1-3/2007(CPP-II) dated 09.06.2016, the OP is not liable to refund the admission fees including other charges. The complaint is frivolous and not tenable in law. Accordingly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily came up for determination:
1) Whether the complainant No.1 is a consumer and OP/Institute is a service provider?
2) Whether the complainant – 1 deposited Rs.39,200/- to the Bank Account of OP for admission in B.Com (H) day session against Challan No. 001704 on 12.06.2017 ?
3) Whether there was any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP?
4)Whether the complainantsare entitled to refund admission fees including interest, compensation and litigation cost?
Decision with Reasons
Point Nos. 1 to4:-
All the points are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Both parties have tendered evidence through affidavit. They have also given reply against the questionnaires set forth by the adversaries. Both parties have also filed their Brief Notes of Arguments.
Upon taking into account of the consumer complaint coupled with its written version and also considering overall assessment and evaluation of the evidence as well as documents furnished by the parties, it is found that complainant No.-1 was selected for admission in B.Com (H) Course, day session, with the OPInstitute and she deposited Rs.39,200/- towards admission fees including other chargesfor the session 2017-2018 against Challan No. 001704 dated 12.06.2017 in the OP’s Bank Accountof Federal Bank, Bhowanipore Branch. It is true that complainant No.- 2 being the father of the complainant No.-1 vide letter dated 24.06.2017 requested the principal of OP / Institute for refund of admission fees on the ground that his daughter is unable to pursue the course due to unavoidable circumstances and the Receptionist of OP received such letter on 17.07.2017. Complainants also caused legal notice dated 05.03.2018 to the OP which was duly replied by the OP referring and relying on 23.04.018 through their Advocate. By such letter, the OP referring and relying UGC Notification dated 06.12.2016 passed in 519th of the Hon’ble Commission on 15.11.2016. As such, OP refused to refund the fees.
We have perused the Notification of the University Grant Commission regarding remittance and refundof fees and other student centric issues. Clause 4.2.3 of the said UGC Notification reads as under:
“If a student chooses to withdraw from the programme of study in which he enrolled the institution concerned shall follow the following 4 tier system for refund of fees remitted by the student:
Sr.No. | Percentage of Refund of Aggregate fees* | Point of time when notice of withdrawal of admission is served to HEI |
(1) | 100% | 15 days before the formally notified last date of admission |
(2) | 80% | Not more than 15 days after the formally notified last date of admission |
(3) | 50% | More than 15 days but less than 30 days after formally notified last date of admission |
(4) | 00% | More than 30 days after formally notified last date of admission |
*(Inclusive of course fees and non-tuition fees but exclusive of caution money and security deposit)
Complainant No.- 2 fails to produce any single scrap of paper to establish that within 30 days from the date of admission he submitted any application to the OP Institute for cancellation of admission of complainant No. 1 with a request to refund the admission fees including other charges. It is true that complainant -1 admitted to OP Institute on 14.06.2017 according to first merit list published by the OP Institute against application No.001060 and the OP Institute received the letter of withdrawal of B.Com (H) Course from the complainant No.-2 on 17.07.2017 i.e. after expiry of 30 days of her admission on notification of last date of admission. Complainant No.-1 deposited admission fees including other charges on 14.06.2017 prior to publication of second merit list. More so, the OP Institute received the letter of withdrawal of admission on 17.07.2017 on expiry of stipulated period. In view of clause 4.2.3 of UGC Notification on remittance and refund of fees and other student centric issues, the complainants are not entitled to refund any percentage of admission fees including other charges. On perusal of the challan No. 001074/01 dated 14.06.2017, it reveals that complainant No.-1 never deposited any caution money and security deposit to the OP at the time of admission. Therefore, the exclusive clause is not applicable in the instant case.
The Hon’ble NCDRC in Rabindra Bharati University Vs. Jayati Roy Chowshury & Ors. in RP No. 263 of 2017 decided on 07.11.2017 placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T.Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. 2012 (3) CPC 615 (SC), Prof. K.K. Ramachandran Vs. Krishnaswamy & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 4133 of 2013 decided on 29.04.2013 Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (II) SCC 159, wherein it was held that education is not a commodity a student is not a “Consumer”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P.T. Koshy (Supra) has held as follows:-
“In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surajeet Kaur, 2010 (II) SCC 159, wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC placing reliance on all earlier judgments 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 CP Act, 1986.”
Having regard to the aforesaid principle, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that education is not a commodity and cannot be defined as “service” as defined under section 2 (1) (d) or (o) of the CP Act, 1986. OP institute is not liable to refund admission fees including other chargesto the complainants to any extent. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
Inthe result, the case merit fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP.
Parties do bear their own cost.
