BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Aashish Garg, s/o Sh. Jai Krishan Garg, r/o # 1004, Sector 9, Panchkula.

       …..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

The Principal, S.D. College, Sector 32, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM: SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                    PRESIDING MEMBER

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                    MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Anil Garg, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Rohit Dheer, Adv. for OP.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant wanted to take admission in B.C.A. Professional Course in the OP institute but the OP had told the complainant that the seats in the B.C.A. course had been filled and that he could get admission in the B.A.(Computer)  and later on when the seat would be vacant in the B.C.A., he would be shifted from B.A. (Computer) to B.C.A. Professional Course.  He deposited the amount of Rs.19,200/- to the OP vide admission-cum-fee slip receipt no. 62888 dated 18.07.2009, on which enrollment no. 6047 and roll no. 3007 was issued to the complainant by the OP. After that he kept on inquiring from the OP about the availability of seat in B.C.A. which was assured by the OP to him at the time of admission in B.A. (Computer)  but the OP always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and had failed to give him seat in B.C.A.  On 27.08.2009 he took admission in DAV College, Sector 10, Chandigarh in B.C.A. Course. He wrote a letter to the OP for the refund of the amount of Rs.19,200/- which was deposited by him vide receipt no. 62888 dated 18.07.2009 but the OP had refused to refund the said amount. On 16.09.2009, he served a legal notice upon the OP for the same but all in vain. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OP. In their written reply the Learned Counsel for the OP admitted the factual matrix of the case and submitted that the complainant had himself and voluntarily applied for B.A. (Computer) course as per the rules, regulations and guidelines laid down in the prospectus/handbook for the academic session 2009-2010 and had never applied for admission to the B.C.A. course and accordingly on merit he was not considered for the same. The complainant had voluntarily vacated the seat; hence as per the rules and regulation laid down in the admission prospectus/handbook 2009-2010, he was not eligible for the refund of the fees. He further submitted that as the complainant had voluntarily vacated his seat in midway, during the academic session on 28^th August 2009, one precious seat of the OP institute in the B.A.-I (computer) has been wasted and would remain vacant throughout the current academic session. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.             The main grouse of the complainant is that he was admitted in B.A. (Computer) in the OP institute for which he had paid the amount of Rs.19,200/- towards admission charges on 18.07.2009.  On 27.08.2009 he got seat in B.C.A. in DAV College, Sector 10, Chandigarh and sought refund of Rs.19,200/- from the OP College which was paid by him as admission charges for B.A. (Computer) in the OP College but the OP had refused to refund the said amount. A receipt no. C-04824 (now marked as annexure C-2) shows that on 27.08.2009 the complainant got admission in BCA-I in D.A.V. College, Chandigarh. On the other hand, the contention of the OP is that the complainant had voluntarily vacated the seat, hence as per the rules and regulation laid down in the admission prospectus/handbook 2009-2010, the complainant is not eligible for the refund of the fees and also due to this act of the complainant, one precious seat of the OP College in B.A.-I (Computer) has been wasted and would remain vacant through the current academic session.

6.             We do not find any merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel for OP that the seat vacated by the complainant would remain vacant through the current academic session.  The onus to prove this assertion was certainly on the OP. However, the OP has not been able to prove it and has not produced any evidence or document to show that the seat vacated by the complainant is still lying vacant thereby causing loss to them. Therefore, this bald assertion of OP cannot be accepted as such and believed in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence. Otherwise also in the information under R.T.I Act (now marked as Annexure R-6) supplied by the OP to the complainant on 26.12.2009, it has been admitted by the OP that there was no limit of seats fixed by the Panjab University, Chandigarh for B.A.I Computer Application Course and therefore there is no question of filling a fixed no. of seats and further any seat remaining vacant and also that date of late admission was extended by the V.C. with late fee of Rs.1300/- upto 10.09.2009”. This admission by the OP in Annexure R-6 is self explanatory that mere vacation of one seat by the complainant on 27.08.2009 would not have caused any financial loss to the OP College. Further, in our view it is immaterial whether the seat remains vacant or not, the service provider cannot forfeit the entire fees or consideration amount for the services, which it has neither provided nor the student has received such services and as such the forfeiture of the fees in toto is not only a deficiency in service but also an unfair trade practice and if there is any such term of the contract, to the contrary, the same is surely an unconscionable contract and therefore void and not binding on the complainant. 

7.              As regards the rules contained in admission prospectus/handbook 2009-2010, Annexure R-1, we are of the firm view that the same cannot override/overrule the guidelines of the University Grant Commission, which is the sole Governing Body for all Universities and Colleges and the OP College too falls under its purview. It is pertinent to mention here that the University Grant Commission (U.G.C.) had issued a Public Notice, which has been thoroughly dealt with by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Nipun Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC) wherein it has been categorically held that the institutions are not entitled to retain the entire fees and if at all they can deduct some amount that is not more than Rs.1000/- and the balance should be refunded.  Therefore, we are of the view that OP was unfair and unjustified in their act by retaining the total fees of Rs.19,200/- of the complainant.  The OP should have, at the most, deducted a sum of Rs.1000/- only, towards processing fee/Administrative charges etc. in view of the guidelines of U.G.C. as well as the law settled by the Hon’ble National Commission, as referred above. 

8.           In view of above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the OP was deficient and unjustified in its act and has also indulged in an unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, the complaint having sufficient merit is allowed.  The OP is directed to refund to the complainant the balance amount of Rs.18,200/- after deducting Rs.1000/- as service/processing/administrative charges and to pay him compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the harassment, mental pain and agony suffered by him due to its deficient & unfair act alongwith litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the OP would be liable to pay the sum of Rs.28,200/- alongwith penal interest at the rate of 15% per annum from  the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 14.10.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.5,000.       

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  Thereafter the file be consigned to records.