MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 30.11.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passing in complaint case No. 949 of 2009.

2.         Brief facts of the case are that the complainant took admission in the Regional Centre of Punjab University, Ludhiana under M.B.A.Course and he had deposited the requisite fee to the OPs for admission but after taking admission, the complainant suffered problem in his eyes. He got his eyes checked from Garewal Eye Institute, Chandigarh where the disease was diagnosed as Cornea Irregular and the complainant was advised for surgery of both the eyes with an interval of one month simultaneously. Copy of the Medical Certificate was attached as Annexure C-2. Due to the aforesaid serious problem in his eyes, the complainant was unable to continue the course of MBA and therefore, he withdrew his admission and made request to the OPs for refund of the fee vide letter dated 8.9.2008 (Annexure C-3). After waiting for sometime, regarding intimation of the decision by the Punjab University, a legal notice was sent on 25.2.2009 to the OPs the refund of the fee amounting to Rs.1,54,212/- along with interest. The OPs sent a reply dated 13.3.2009 to the complainant in which the OPs refused to refund the fee of the complainant.  The above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by OPs and admitted the factual matrix of the case with regard to the admission of complainant in MBA Course and a sum of Rs.1,54,112/- deposited as fee. It was pleaded that after admission, the complainant withdrew from the said course on 8.9.2008 i.e. after the last counseling held on 27.8.2008, as a result his seat could not be filled up for want of candidates. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any refund of fee as per Rule 4.1 of the Hand Book of Information and Rules for Admission, 2008 issued by the OP University. It was further pleaded that the complainant was neither entitled for the refund of fee as per statutory rules of the Punjab University nor as per UGC Guidelines (Annexure R-II). All other allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

5.         The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as there was no merit in the complaint.

6.            Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. Sh.Sachin Gupta, Advocate appeared on behalf of appellant and Dr.Ranbir Kaur, Law Officer has appeared on behalf of respondents.

7.         In appeal, it is submitted by the appellant that while passing the impugned order, the learned District Forum has not applied its mind and also not considered the written arguments submitted by the complainant as well as judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission annexed with the written arguments. As per Annexure R-1 annexed with the reply filed by OPs, it is clearly mentioned in para No. 4.1 (4) that the time period for applying the refund of fee by the students be fixed upto 30^th November, 2008 but in this case the complainant applied for refund of fees on 8.9.2008 i.e. before 30.11.2008 (in appeal the year has been wrongly written 2009 instead of 2008). It has been submitted by the appellant that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. The learned District Forum has failed to consider the arguments advanced on behalf of appellant and also the various documents placed on record on this score alone and prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and set aside the order passed by the learned District Forum.

8.         We have perused the record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the complainant took admission for MBA Course in Punjab University on 27.8.2008 and attended classes upto 2.9.2008. As per record soon after getting the admission the complainant suffered from eye problem and was advised for surgery of both the eyes with an interval of one month simultaneously. Due to this, the complainant withdrew himself from the said course and requested the Punjab University for refund of the fee vide letter dated 8.9.2009 but the same was refused by Ops vide letter dated 13.3.2009. Due to this act of OPs, the complaint was filed by the complainant which has been dismissed by the learned District Forum on the ground that the complainant has left the course on its own and the said seat was not filled up for want of candidate and the seat remained vacant throughout the year. Therefore, the complainant is not eligible and entitled for the refund of the fee as per the UGC Instructions. The learned District Forum has also dismissed the complaint on the ground that there are catena of judgments wherein it has been held that when any candidate leaves the course voluntarily and the seat left by him remains vacant then the candidate is not entitled for any refund of fee.

9.         The main point for consideration before us is whether the Ops have rightly refused the complainant for the refund of fees as per the UGC Guidelines.

10.       In our view, the Ops as per the guidelines of the UGC has rightly refused the complainant for the refund of fee because it has been proved on file that the complainant has withdrew from the course and applied for refund of fee on 8.9.2008 i.e. after the last counseling held on 27.8.2008. Since the seat vacated by him after admission could not be filled up for want of candidates, hence, he is not entitled for any refund of fee in terms of Rule 4.1 of the Handbook of Information and Rules for Admission, 2008 issued by the OP university. The complainant is neither entitled for the refund of fee as per statutory rules of the University as per UGC Guidelines. Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove that the complainant could not continue his further studies due to his eyes problem. The complainant has neither placed any case history nor any expert opinion of a specialized doctor regarding his eyes problem on record. The complainant has only produced a final bill Annexure C-2 issued by Grewal Eye Hospital, which shows that the complainant was admitted, operated and discharged on the same day, from which a conclusion cannot be drawn that the complainant is suffering from some serious kind of eyes disease and due to this reason, he could not continue his further studies. In the absence of any evidence or conclusive proof, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs because the complainant has left the course on his own choice and the same has already been observed by the learned District Forum. We find that the learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. The case law furnished by the complainant titled M.V.J.College of Engineering Vs. Tukaram Rao [2009] CJ 306 (N.C.) is not applicable in this case.

11.       In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned District Forum is just, fair and proper and no interference is called for. Hence, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.

12.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.

27^th July, 2010.