Date of filing : 17.07.2009<br /> Date of Order: 30.04.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1690 OF 2009<br /> <br /> V. Samarth Shukla<br /> S/o. Dr. Vinod Kumar Shukla<br /> R/at Flat No. 913, B- Wing<br /> Twin Tower, Manish Park<br /> Pump House, Andheri (East)<br /> Mumbai 400 093 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> 1. The Member Secretary<br /> All India Council for Technical Education<br /> (AICTE), 7th Floor, Chandralok Building<br /> Janapath, New Delhi 110 001<br /> <br /> 2. The Executive Secretary<br /> Consortium of Medical, Engineering and<br /> Dental Colleges of Karnataka, COMEDK<br /> No. 37, 1st Floor, Ramanashree Chambers<br /> Lady Curzon Road, Bangalore 560 001<br /> <br /> 3. The Principal<br /> Bapuji Institute of Engineering and <br /> Technology, Davanagere 577 004 Opposite parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant appeared for counseling during 2006 and got seat in Electronics and Communications in opposite party No. 3 college. Complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 85,000/- by way of D.D. dated 22.07.206. Rest of the amount was to be deposited at the time of admission in the concerned college. Complainant is resident of Bombay and got a seat at Bombay and as such he could not take admission at opposite party No. 3. Thereafter, complainant has written several letters and representation to opposite parties on 18.11.2006, 19.01.2007, 27.10.2008, 16.12.2008 and on 04.02.2009. All became in vain. Opposite parties failed to refund the amount of Rs. 85,000/- to the complainant. Opposite party No. 2 considered the request of one Mr. G. Sathyanarayana Prasad of Kolar and paid sum of Rs. 40,000/- out of Rs. 50,000/- and thereby opposite party No. 2 is discriminating the similarly placed persons which amounts to violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Complainant issued legal notice on 22.05.2009 calling upon the opposite parties to pay the amount. Hence, the complainant has prayed for direction to opposite parties to pay the amount with 12% interest. <br /> 2. After admitting the complaint, notice issued to opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 has filed defence version stating that Complainant had admittedly has not reported to the institution within time prescribed. Complainant is bound by the instructions given by the opposite parties. Since, the complainant had been selected in casual vacancy round, 100% fee paid is forfeited and is not entitled for refund. Opposite party No. 3 by letter dated 23.08.2006 has submitted to the opposite party No. 2 that complainant has not reported at the institution within the time prescribed. The instance of G. Sathyanarayana Prasad cannot be compared to that of the complainant’s case. The complainant has made several requests to opposite party No. 2 to refund the fee paid. Opposite party No. 1 has forwarded representation to opposite party No. 2 in pursuance of the public notice. Hence, opposite party No. 1 has not given any direction to COMEDK to refund the fee.<br /> 3. Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. On behalf of opposite party No. 2 affidavit of R.V. Govindarao, Secretary of opposite party No. 2 has been filed.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of fee paid by him?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No. 2? <br /> 6. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant appeared for counseling before opposite party No. 2 and he got seat in Electronics and Communications in opposite party No. 3 college. It is admitted fact that he has deposited sum of Rs. 85,000/- with opposite party No. 2 by way of D.D. on 22.07.2006. It is also admitted case that complainant did not get admission with the opposite party No. 3 college as per the seat allotment. It is the case of the complainant that he is resident of Bombay and got seat at Bombay College and therefore, he could not take admission with opposite party No. 3 college. Therefore, the complainant requested the opposite party No. 2 for refund of amount by way of writing several letters. Inspite of several requests and letters the opposite party No. 2 has not taken any steps to refund the amount. Therefore, the complainant has forced to file the present complaint. The complainant has produced public notice issued by All India Council for Technical Education. As per this public notice in the event of student withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after deduction of processing fee of not more than Rs. 1,000/-, shall be refunded and returned by the institution/university to the student withdrawing from the programme. Even in the said public notice, it has been mentioned that any violation of instructions issued by AICTE shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition of erring institutions. So in view of this clear instructions from AICTE which is a statutory body of the Government of India, New Delhi the opposite party No. 2 cannot refuse to refund the amount because admittedly, the complainant has not taken admission with the opposite party No. 3 college even though the seat had been allotted to him by opposite party No. 2. He has requested for cancellation of the seat and refund of the amount by writing several representation letters. The opposite party No. 2 instead of refunding the amount immediately taken untenable stand. The complainant has produced several correspondence made with the opposite party No. 2. Even in the instructions for participation in the centralized single window seat selection process of the COMEDK, it is clearly mentioned at clause 6 of the said instructions that in the case of a candidate who cancels/surrenders the seat selected in the admission round before the turn of such candidates in the casual vacancy round, the candidate shall forfeit 10% of the fee paid and will receive the refund of the remaining 90% by cheque. So as per this rule also, the opposite party No. 2 shall have refunded the amount after deducting 10% of the fee paid. In several decisions, Hon’ble National Commission and State Commission have ordered for refund of the fee in a similarly constituted case. The opposite party No. 2 has not produced any record or documents or evidence to show that the seat withdrawn/cancelled by the present complainant has fell vacant through out the academic year, therefore, it is not possible to refund the amount. Admittedly, the student has not taken admission with the opposite party No. 3 college. The opposite party No. 3 has written a letter to the father of complainant on 02.01.2009. In that letter it has been clearly stated that the complainant has not reported for admission with the institution and same has been reported to the COMEDK office and it is specifically stated that the fee amount and original documents had not been sent to the opposite party No. 3 institution and the Principal of Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology has directed the father of the complainant to contact Executive Secretary, COMEDK for refund of fee and return of original documents. So when this is the case where is question of refusing to refund the amount. The amount deposited by the complainant is with the opposite party No. 2 itself and therefore, there is no logic or reason whatsoever in not refunding the amount to the complainant when he had withdrawn from the program and requested for refund of the amount. There is absolutely no acceptable or justifiable ground on the part of opposite party No. 2 to refuse to refund the fee. So under these circumstances the request of the complainant to refund the amount shall have to be accepted. The opposite party No. 2 shall have to be directed to refund the fee paid by the complainant after deducting Rs. 1,000/- towards processing fee as per the public notice of AICTE. Non-refunding of fee by the opposite party No. 2 even after several requests and representation definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2. The complainant has prayed for interest on the amount. This being a case of refund of fee the question of granting interest does not arise. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No. 2 is directed to refund Rs. 84,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the above amount carries interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation.<br /> 8. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party No. 2.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />