JUDGMENT 13.10.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 7.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.859 of 2008 was dismissed. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be capitulated thus ; The complainant got admission in Haryana College of Technology and Management -OP NO.1(hereinafter to be referred as OP College) for the session 2007-2008 and cleared his Ist Semester vide Roll NO.1707515. However, his roll number for 2nd Semester was withheld by OP College without any cause or reason due to which the complainant got depression. Ultimately, on the intervention of OP No.3-Director, Technical Education, Haryana, he was issued roll number for the 2nd Semester. However, due to depression, the complainant attempted his papers of 2nd semester with great hardship and difficulty and he was to undergo treatment at G.M.C.H., Sector 32, Chandigarh . On account of this act of OP College, the complainant was not intended to continue his course and as such sought “No Objection Certificate” for taking admission in some other college/institute for completion of further course. He also requested for refund of his 3rd Semester Fee deposited with them through letters & representations but of no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 3. On the other hand the case of OP No.1 – Principal Haryana College of Technology and Management before the District Forum was that the roll number of complainant was never withheld by them, rather the complainant appeared in the 2nd semester examination. It was pleaded that in case the complainant was not interested to pursue his further studies with the answering OP, they had no objection to the same and accordingly necessary NOC was supplied to the complainant. However, the fee deposited by the complainant for 3rd Semester was non-refundable as per Annexure R-1. It was pleaded that in fact the complainant deposited the fee for 3rd Semester on 9.5.2008 but representation was made for issuing NOC on 24.7.2008. However, he did not turn up to collect the same and rather filed complaint before the District Forum on 29.7.008. However, OP NO.2- Vice Chancellor Kurukshetra University filed short reply by stating therein that the main dispute was only between the complainant and OP College for issuance of NOC & refund of fee and there were no allegations against answering OP, hence, the complaint was not maintainable qua them and therefore prayed for dismissal of the same. OP No.3- Director,Technical Education, Haryana also filed reply stating therein that on the application dated 4.7.2008 moved by the father of complainant-Vikas Singh (Annexure R-2) regarding harassment by College Authorities and request for giving directions to College Authorities to issue NOC to enable his son to study elsewhere, OP College vide Ann. R-II was requested to give its comments, in response to which they intimated vide Ann.R-III that the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum, as such they were not able to give their comments till decision of the complaint. It was also submitted that the migration from one institute to another is under the purview & control of OP No.2 and not of answering OP. So, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint qua OP No.3. 4. Complainant filed replication to the reply filed by OPs controverting the assertions made therein and reiterating those made in the complaint and also prayed for return of original documents retained by OP college. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the complaint and dismissed the same, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. This is how feeling aggrieved, complainant has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The learned counsel for complainant has put forth twofold arguments. Firstly, he submitted that OP college had harassed the complainant in not issuing the roll number for the examination of 2nd semester and on account of that he had to undergo treatment for depression in the Govt. Medical College & Hospital,Sector-32, Chandigarh. In this regard, his next limb of arguments was that the college authorities had charged Rs.25,000/- as fee for the third semester in the month of May,2008 whereas the session of third semester had only started in the month of August,2008. According to guidelines laiddown by the Directorate of Technical Education Haryana, Chandigarh, fee for the subsequent semester could be charged only after the start of that semester and not before it. In this regard, he placed on the file an office order No.23 dated 9.7.2007 (A-1) issued by the aforesaid authority on the recommendation of State Fee Committee. The aforesaid point of arguments put forth on behalf of the complainant could not be rebutted by any learned counsel for OPs. 7. Here it is also pertinent to mention that on the earlier date i.e. 22.10.2009 the learned counsel for appellant had stated that the seat vacated by the complainant was filled up by OP college. Therefore, as per instructions of the University Grants Commission he was entitled for refund of the fee deposited for the third semester. However, this fact was denied by Sh.R.K.Bansal, learned proxy counsel for Sh.Rajinder Goel, advocate. Thereupon, Principal of the college was asked to place detailed affidavit on the file on 26.11.2009. No doubt that on the last date i.e. 26.11.2009 affidavit of Sh.D.P.Gupta, Principal of the College was placed on file and copy of the same was supplied to the counsel opposite but the said affidavit did not contain all the required details. Therefore, following order was passed by this Commission on 26.11.2009 ; “Affidavit of Sh.D.P.Gupta, Principal, Haryana College of Technology and Management, Kaithal filed. Copy supplied to the counsel opposite. The same appears to be vague as the deponent has not given the details of the persons who had left after taking admission and it also does not denote the names of the persons kept in the waiting list and there is no mention regarding the total number of seats, which were advertised and how many of them were filled up at the initial stage and what was the number of students who remained admitted till the completion of the academic session. So, last opportunity is granted to file a detailed affidavit containing all the above requisite information and the matter be put up on 11.3.2010 for further proceedings. ” 8. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 11.3.2010 but inspite of the last opportunity granted to the College, requisite detailed affidavit in terms of the order passed on 26.11.2009 was not filed for the reasons best known to the college authorities. Ultimately we have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties as stated above. 9. In his arguments, learned counsel for OP college submitted that the original documents received from the complainant at the time of counseling were returned to him but in that behalf there is no material on the file which could show the receipt of the original documents by the complainant. It is a matter of common knowledge that the college authorities at the time of counseling obtained and retained the original documents of the candidates but they also maintain the record regarding the despatch/receipt of those documents/certificates but there is nothing on the file to that effect, nor any explanation in that behalf has been put forth. Thus, adverse inference is drawn against the college authorities. Admittedly complainant did not attend the class even for a day in the third semester which had taken off in the month of August,2008 for which fee of Rs.25,000/- was charged by the college authorities from the complainant in the month of May,2008 which was in violation of guidelines and order laid down by the Directorate of Technical Education, Haryana in its office order No.23 (A-1). 10. In this view of our foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned District Forum while passing the impugned order has not appreciated the aforesaid facts and circumstances in its right perspective. Thus, the impugned order dated 7.1.2009 is set aside. 11. In the result, this appeal succeeds with costs of Rs.5000/-. Consequently, complaint filed by appellant is allowed in the following terms ; (i) OP No.1 –Principal Haryana College of Technology and Management shall refund fee of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the complainant in the month of May,2008 within a period of one month, failing which complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its actual realization. (ii) OP NO.1 is also directed to return all the original documents/certificates which were retained by it to the complainant within 15 days from the date copy of this order is received. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
