DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Rohit Goyal son of Sh. Vinod Kumar Goyal resident of B-1, 331/1 Jawahar Nagar, Gali No.6, Goniana Mandi, Distt. Bathinda (Punjab) 151201.

                                      ---Complainants.

Versus

1.                 The Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering & Technology, Chandigarh-Patiala Highway, Ram Nagar (Near Banur) (Punjab) through its Chairman and Corporate Office at S.C.O 51-52, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.

2.                 Ashok Garg, Director Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering & Technology, Chandigarh-Patiala Highway, Ram Nagar (Near Banur) (Punjab)

… Opposite parties

3.                 All India Council for Technical Education (A statutory body of the Government of India) 7^th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi 110001 through its Secretary.

… Proforma OP .

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for the complainant

                        OP No.1 already exparte.

                        Sh. Vikas Goyal, Counsel for OP No.2

                        OP No.3 already exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Rohit Goyal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

i)                   to refund the amount of Rs.49,980/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

ii)                To pay Rs.1.00 lac on account of mental agony and harassment

iii)              To pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

iv)              Any other relief.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that after passing his three year diploma course from Govt. Polytechnic College, Bathinda, he took admission in the Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering & Technology (opposite parties No.1) and deposited Rs.2,000/- on account of uniform fee.  The complainant took admission in the 3^rd semester in the Branch of Mechanical Engineering (LEET entry programme) long before the actual start date of academic session 2011-12. He further deposited Rs.47,980/- for which only an informal receipt (C-3) was issued.  The complainant further deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 12.9.2011 on account of hostel fee vide receipt (C-4).

It has been averred that the classes in the college of opposite parties No.1 & 2 commenced on 13.9.2011 and the complainant attended classes upto 27.9.2011 only. 

Subsequently the complainant got admission in the Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Bathinda and he was required to deposit Rs.47,825/-.  According to the complainant, he alongwith his father approached the opposite parties for refund of his entire fee. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 initially refused to refund the fee but later on refunded only Rs.50,000/-.  It has been averred that opposite parties No.1 & 2 have not refunded an amount of Rs.49,980/- which is contrary to the AICTE guidelines and amounts to deficiency in service.

In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           Notice sent for the service of Opposite party No.1 was received back with the report of refusal. Neither the Chairman, nor any authorised agent, appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 on the date fixed.  Hence, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.9.2012.

4.                           Opposite party No.2 in its written reply admitted that the complainant took admission with it and deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. It has also been admitted that the complainant attended classes upto 27.9.2011.  It has been averred that the opposite party is not bound to refund the full payment with interest.  It has further been averred that the complainant is entitled for refund of fee as per rules and regulations.  The remaining averments have been denied being wrong.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

5.                           Opposite party No.3 in its separate written reply averred that the complainant never applied to it for refund of the fee.  However, it has been pleaded that the All India Council for Technical Education has issued a public notification regarding refund of fee.  It has further been pleaded that since the matter pertain to refund of fee between the complainant and Opposite parties No.1 & 2, therefore, its name may be deleted.

                   Subsequently, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 on 31.10.2012, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte. 

6.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

7.                           The complainant has himself admitted in para 6 of his complaint that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was received by him from opposite parties No.1 & 2. 

8.                           It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties have failed to refund him Rs.2,000/- and Rs.47,980/- which were taken from him vide receipts C-1 and C-3.  A perusal of the receipt (C-1) shows that an amount of Rs.2,000/- was received by opposite party No.1 from the complainant towards uniform fee.  The amount was charged for uniform which was meant to be used by the complainant while in the College.  It is admitted himself by the complainant that he took admission and attended classes in the college of opposite parties for some days.  If that is so, the said amount cannot be refunded to the complainant. 

9.                           Annexure C-3 is the receipt allegedly issued by opposite parties No.1 & 2 for having received a sum of Rs.47,980/- as tuition fee.  The abovesaid receipt is not on the printed proforma of the College.  In para 3 of the complaint, the complainant has specifically pleaded that he deposited a sum of Rs.47,980/- as tuition fee.  However, opposite parties No.1 & 2 were reluctant to issue receipt for the same but on persistence by him, an informal receipt (C-3) was issued.  In reply to the said para, opposite parties No.2 has not specifically stated that the amount mentioned was not given and the receipt C-3 was not issued by it.  Thus, the averment of the complainant to the effect that the informal receipt
(C-3) for Rs.47,980/- was issued by opposite parties No.1 & 2 is not specifically denied.  Furthermore, opposite party No.2 has admitted that the complainant took admission in the College and attended classes.  The admission could not have been given without receipt of the fee.  In these circumstances the version of the complainant to the effect that he paid a sum of Rs.47,980/- vide receipt (C-3) to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 stands proved.

10.                       Annexure R-3/1 is a copy of the public notice issued by the All India Council for Technical Education. From the bare perusal of this document it is apparent that the College (opposite party) is required to refund the fee after deducting processing fee of Rs.1,000/- in case a candidate withdraws before the start of the course and the college/opposite party was required to prepare a waiting list and the candidate from the waiting list could be adjusted against the seat vacated (by the complainant). If opposite parties have not maintained any waiting list, they cannot deny the refund of fee to the complainant because he left the course.  In these circumstances, as per the instructions mentioned above, the complainant is entitled to the refund of the above said amount after deducting Rs.1,000/-.  Failure on the part of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to refund the above said amount, amounts to deficiency in service. 

11.                       Opposite party No.3 has been merely arrayed as a proforma opposite party.  Neither any relief has been sought nor any deficiency in service has been proved qua opposite party No.3.  Therefore, the complaint qua it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

12.                       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed as under :-

i)                   to refund the amount of Rs.46,980/- (47980 – 1000) to the complainant

ii)                to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation

iii)              to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

13.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties No.1 & 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

14.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27.2.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER