DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:741 of 2010] Date of Institution : 15.11.2010 Date of Decision : 14.09.2011 Ms. Kavya Singh D/o Sh. D. S. Jasrotia resident of House No.3205, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. Goswami Ganesh Dutta Sanatan Dharma College, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh. 2. Panjab University through Registrar, U.T., Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. G. S. Jaswal, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Rohit Dheer, Advocate for OP No.1. Sh. Ajay Sood, Advocate for OP No.2. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Ms. Kavya Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to:- i) Refund a sum of Rs.50,652/- paid as fee. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that she got admission in Goswami Ganesh Dutta Sanatan Dharam College in M.Sc (Applied Chemistry – Pharma) for the Sessions 2010-2011 and deposited Rs.50,652/- as fee vide receipt No.69806 dated 12.07.2010 (Annexure C-2). It is averred thatat the time of her admission, only 20 seats were available in the course. In the meantime, the complainant got admission in Thapar University, Patiala in M.Sc (Chemistry) and deposited the requisite fee. According to the complainant, she has been attending the classes in Thapar Universty regularly. It is averred that as she had attended the OP College for one week only, she applied for refund of fee of Rs.50,652/- deposited with the OP vide her letter dated 24.07.2010 but no response was received from the OP. She again sent a reminder through registered post on 27.09.2010 but to no avail. Finally, she served a legal notice dated 18.10.2010 upon the OP. According to the complainant, non refund of the fee by the OP amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OP No.1, it has been admitted that the complainant was given admission in OP College in M.Sc (Applied Chemistry – Pharma) for the Sessions 2010-2011 and she deposited the fee of Rs.50,652/- vide receipt No.69806 dated 12.07.2010. It has been pleaded that five additional seats of M.Sc (Applied Chemistry) were sanctioned by the Vice Chancellor, Punjab University Chandigarh in addition to the existing 20 seats vide his letter dated 6.8.2010 (Annexure R-3). Accordingly the total number of seats in the said course became 25. According to OP, out of total 25 seats in M.Sc (Applied Chemistry), only 22 seats were filled till the date of filing of the written statement and three 3 seats were still lying vacant. The case of OP is that since, all the seats have not been filled, the complainant is not entitled to any refund except the security, if admissible. It has been asserted that the complainant has not produced any document on record to show that she had got admission in some other University. It is averred that the complainant does not fall under the relevant UGC guidelines. According to OP No.1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. In the reply filed by OP No.2, all the averments have been denied for want of knowledge. According to OP No.2, no relief has been claimed against it and there is no link or relation to the present dispute between the complainant and OP No.2. Thus, according to OP No.2, since it has no role to play, the complaint deserves dismissal against it. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully. 6. Admittedly, the complainant had taken admission in M.Sc (Applied Chemistry) in OP College and had deposited an amount of Rs.50,652/- as fee for the said course. It is also not disputed that the complainant left the course and sought refund of fee from the OP College vide letter dated 24.07.2010. 7. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP is that as the seat left by the complainant has not been filled, she is not entitled to the refund of the fee deposited by her. It is admitted that 22 seats have been filled. Admittedly, 5 seats were sanctioned for M.Sc-I (Applied Chemistry) vide letter dated 6.8.2010 i.e. after the application for refund was submitted by the complainant. So, at the time the complainant left the OP College, only 20 seats were available in the said course. Admittedly, 22 seats have been filled. So, the seat vacated by the complainant has been filled. OP College cannot take benefit of letter dated 6.8.2010 to allege that there were 25 seats available in M.Sc-I (Applied Chemistry) on 12.7.2010. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP has no force. 8. As regards the refund of fee, the relevant regulation for fee refund, as enshrined in the Prospectus of OP College is reproduced as under: - “ Regulations for Fee Refund. · Fee once paid will not be refunded. · If refund is admissible, then it will be paid subject to the following conditions: 1) If all seats are filled and refund application is submitted before the start of the session, Rs.1,000/- service charges will be deducted. 2) If seats are full and if refund is sought, the fee will be refunded proportionately. For fee refund purposes the session starts from May 1. 3) If all seats are not filled, no refund will be made, except the security, if admissible. 4) Fee refund cases, if any, will be dealt with, only after the last date of admission, with the permission of the Vice Chancellor.” 9. From the bare perusal of the above mentioned regulation of OP for refund of fee, it is apparent that the fee is to be refunded under two separate conditions. Firstly, it is to be refunded after deducting Rs.1,000/- as service charges if all the seats are filled and refund application is submitted before the start of the session. The complainant does not come under this clause as she had attended the class for a few days and the refund was sought after starting of the session. 10. Secondly, under clause (2), as reproduced above, the fee is to be refunded proportionately if seats are full. It is also mentioned that for such refund, the sessions starts from May, 1. Thus, the case for refund of fee deposited by the complainant is covered under Clause (2) of Regulations for fee refund. 11. In the present case, the OP had charged Rs.50,652/- as fees for M.Sc (1st Year). The course started on 01.05.2010 and the complainant moved an application for refund of the balance fee on 24.07.2010. So, admittedly, the complainant had studied for three months in the OP College. Therefore, she is entitled to the refund of the entire fee after deduction of proportionate fee for the period of three months. OP Institute is also entitled to deduct Rs.1,000/- as administration charges as per UGS Guidelines. In addition to this, the complainant is entitled for compensation for physical harassment and agony, which she suffered at the hands of the OP Institute. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present complaint is allowed. The OP is directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant after deducting the proportionate fee for the period of three months from the amount deposited by her with OP College vide Receipt dated 12.7.2010 (Annexure C-2). The Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and litigation charges amounting to Rs.7,000/-. 13. The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP, within a period of one month from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall pay the above said amount (excluding cost of litigation) along with interest @12% per annum from the date of complainant making application for refund i.e.24.07.2010, till the date of realization, along with the cost of litigation mentioned above. 14. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 14th September 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
[Complaint Case No:741 of 2010] Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 12.09.2011. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 14.09.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
