DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Nitish Arora son of Sh.Krishan Arora, H.No.784, Sector 7, Panchkula.

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

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

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

3]     Al India Council for Technical Education (A Statutory Body of the Government of India), 7^th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Dehli – 1109001, through its Secretary.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:            Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant

Sh.Harinder Singh, Advocate for the OP-2.

OPs No.1 & 3 exparte

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as CC for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short) on the ground that the CC took admission in OP No.1 & 2s Institute on 01.06.2009, before the actual date of starting of the Academic Sessions 2009-10 in B.Tech (IT) Course and deposited a sum of Rs.45,980/- vide receipt Ann.C-1 towards fees.  Prospectus of OP-1 & 2 was obtained by the CC from Chandigarh Corporate Office of OP-1 including the application form. 

                Thereafter, the CC was successful in getting admission in M.M.Engineering College, Mullana in B.Tech. (Computer Science & Engg.) Ist Year Course.  Admission-cum-Fee Slip is Ann.C-3.  The Roll Number issued by M.M.Engineering College, Mullana is Ann.C-4.After that   the CC immediately approached OP-1 & 2 along with his father to seek refund of the entire fee deposited on 01.06.2009 with the College. 

                OP-1 & 2 flatly refused to refund the fee.  However, it is also alleged that the behavior of OP No.2 towards the CC and his father was very rude and abusive, which is totally uncalled for. It is further alleged that OP-2 has clearly violated the AICTE Guidelines and Advertisement NO.AICTE/DPG/09(02)/2008 (Ann.C-5). 

                The CC has also alleged that OP-2 has not only violated the guidelines of AICTE but also spoke highly of his   political connections.  The CC has reproduced the Guidelines in the complaint itself and had also served a legal notice dated 22.01.2010 (Ann.C-7) along with postal receipt (Ann.C-8 to C-10). 

                CC has prayed seeking directions for the refund of the sum of Rs.45,988/- deposited with Op-2 along with interest @18% p.a. from 01.06.2009 till its realization.  CC has further sought Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment along with Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.         

2]             On notice, OP-2 filed their version.

                OP-1 & 3, even though successfully served, preferred not to contest the claim of the CC by not appearing in the Forum, hence were proceeded against exparte 09.7.2010 and 09.03.2010 respectively.  

                OP-2 has filed his version through affidavit of Sh. Paramjit Singh, Principal of OP-2, and taking preliminary objection of the present complaint wherein it is stated that the CC is neither the consumer nor the present forum has any jurisdiction, as the answering OP Institute is situated at Banur, Tehsil Rajpura, Patiala.  The present complaint is also barred on the act and conduct of the CC, which is against the law. 

                On merits, though other contentions of the CC are admitted being part of the record, but OP-2 has contested that the contents of Para-6 of the complaint are denied on the ground that the instructions are applicable to the institute if the student got admission through centralized counseling and the seat surrendered by the student is filled thereafter, whereas in the present case, the CC got admission through management quota and the seat surrendered by the CC remained vacant for whole session.  The OP-2 has also denied the allegations of CC of the rude behavior of OP-2 as mentioned in Para-4 of the complaint.

                OP-2 has also mentioned that CC initially took admission in IT Stream, thereafter requested to be considered for CSE Course, application for which is Annexed as R-1.  OP-2 has further tendered details of admissions made in the year 2009 wherein number of admissions made against each stream and also showing the vacancy against each stream. 

                OP-2 has prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.         

3]             Parties led their respective evidences.

4]             Having gone through the entire complaint and version of OP-2 and the evidence of the parties, we are of the considered view that the CC is successful in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs on the following grounds:-

i)         It is interesting to note that in the opening line of the preliminary objections taken by OP-2, as mentioned in their version, which is duly attested and verified, by way of an affidavit, wherein it is wrongly stated that the son of the complainant got admission with answering OP.  From the very title of the complaint, the name of CC is Nitish Arora, who himself had taken admitted with the OP-2.  The same fact can be corroborated from Ann.C-1, which is the Receipt of Fee of an amount of Rs.45,980/-, dated 01.06.2009. 

ii)        Though it is alleged in Para-1 of version of OP-2 that the CC had left the course after joining the same for few days and leaving due to his personal reasons.  It is also alleged that the CC has caused loss to the answering OP-2 by leaving the course after a passage of 1½ month after taking admission, thus rendering the seat vacant for entire Session.  The OP-2 has failed to bring on record any document from which it could be ascertained that the CC ever attended any classes or had occupied the Hostel premises and if at all, for how long.  In the absence of any evidence that could support the version of OP-2, the contentions of the complainant hold ground. 

iii)        Though, OP-2 has submitted Ann.R-3, which is the detail of different streams of course showing the actual intake of students and the vacancy of seats.  This one document is nothing but a creation of OP-2 as the same cannot be corroborated in the absence of actual attendance register of different courses as mentioned in Ann.R-3.  It is also important to mention that under Sr.No.1,2,3 & 4 of Ann.R-3, OP-2 has failed to mention as to whether the courses are Under-Graduate i.e. B.Tech or a Post-Graduate Courses i.e. M.Tech.  We believe that this one document has been filed to mislead the Forum and to defeat the genuine claim of the CC.

iv)    CC is successful in proving by bringing on record the fee slip of M.M.University, Mullana, dated 22.07.2009, wherein he had deposited an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- as course fee for B.Tech. (CS & E) 1^st Year, establishing the fact that CC left the College of OP-2 preferring a better institute and his preferred stream of course. On the other hand OP-2 has failed to bring on record the Schedule of commencement of course along with detail of waiting list of students as maintained by them, to show that CC has genuinely caused them loss of seat, which could not be filled later on.

5]             In the above circumstances and in the light of absence of any cogent and reliable evidence by OP-2 we believe that CC is successful in proving his contentions against OP-2.  Hence, we allow the complaint and direct OP-2 to refund the entire amount of fee of Rs.45,980/- after deducting Rs.1000/- i.e. Rs.44,980/- as per the AICTE Guidelines.  We further burdened OP-2 with a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation. 

                    This order be complied with by OP-2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP-2 shall be liable to pay an interest @18% p.a. on the total decreetal amount i.e. Rs.59,980/- that stands against him after completion of 30 days, besides the cost of litigation.

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

Announced

23.09.2011

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER 

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER