Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/240/2021

Apurv Singhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

University Institute of Engineering & Technology, Punjab University (South Campus) - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

24 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/240/2021
Date of Institution	:	09/04/2021
Date of Decision	:	24/08/2022

 

Apurv Singhal son of Sh. Dr.Surinder K Singhal, resident of House No.3108, GMCH Campus, Sector 48-D, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

University Institute of Engineering & Technology, Punjab University (South Campus), Sector 25, Chandigarh 160014 through its Director.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                           

    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Arun K. Bakshi, Counsel for OP

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The facts in brief are, on 8.8.2018, the complainant applied for spot round admission to UIET (OP) by paying participation fee of ₹40,000/-  and the final seat was supposed to be confirmed by the OP on 12.8.2018. However, on 9.8.2018, the complainant got a confirmation call for admission in another college i.e. Chitkara Engineering College, Banur. Accordingly, on the same day complainant’s mother sent an email to the Joint Admission Committee (JAC) opting out of the spot round and requested for refund. However, on 12.8.2018 when the complainant checked the website of the OP, he was surprised that seat was allotted to him in Engineering College, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The complainant again sent an email on 12.8.2018 followed by representation dated 11.10.2018 praying for refund, but, to no avail.  The OP vide its reply dated 15.10.2018 advised the complainant to contact the allotted institute regarding refund. When the complainant approached the said institute, it directed the complainant to approach the OP as the fee was deposited with the OP.  However, despite writing numerous emails as well as personal visit by father of the complainant, the OP failed to refund the amount. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and admitted that the complainant participated in the admission process by depositing the participation fee.  Maintained the complainant had himself confirmed for participation in spot round and accordingly he was allotted a seat in CCET, Sector 26, Chandigarh as per admission rules. Averred, the participation fee was not paid to the OP, but, to Joint Admission Committee 2018 which was transferred to CCET, Sector 26, Chandigarh on 13.9.2018 and as the complainant was allotted seat, he had no claim on refund of participation fee from JAC 2018.  Further, once the admission process was over, the JAC for that year ceased to have any control over any of the seats in any of the participating institutes. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Replication was filed by the complainant and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant in the present consumer complaint is that despite his clear cut refusal, OP allotted him a seat.  Further despite his repeated requests and personal meetings with the authorities, OP failed to refund the amount in question i.e. ₹40,000/- which the complainant had paid for spot round counseling to UIET (OP). 
7.     The stand taken by the OP is that the complainant himself confirmed his participation in the spot round and accordingly paid the participation fee.  It has been contended that he was allotted seat in CCET, Sector 26, Chandigarh as per admission rules and as the complainant was allotted seat, therefore, as per rules he had no claim on refund of participation fee.  It has been further contended that once the admission process is over, it does not have any control over any of the seats in any of the participating institutes. Hence, OP claimed there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part.
8.     Perusal of the documents on record clearly reveals that admittedly the complainant paid the amount of ₹40,000/- for the purpose of spot round counselling. It is also admitted fact that on 9.8.2018, OP was informed through email by the complainant opting out of the admission process as he had got admission in another institute of his choice. However, it is very surprising that despite duly receiving information from the complainant regarding his refusal to participate in the admission process, OP admitted him on 12.8.2018 and offered him seat.
9.     So far as the plea of OP regarding fee in question lying with CCET, Sector 26, Chandigarh or JAC 2018 is concerned, both the parties are alien to the complainant. He had only identity of the OP in his mind and with that trust he had paid the aforesaid amount to seek admission. However, the OP is taking contradictory stand in its reply as on one hand it is admitting the receipt of email dated 9.8.2018 (Annexure C-1) from the complainant and on the other hand it is refusing to refund the fee by taking the plea that the custodian of the amount is some other party which has not been arrayed by the complainant as OP in the present consumer complaint. We are of the opinion that it was the duty of the OP to have taken action on the relevant email (Annexure C-1) vide which the complainant had opted out of the spot round counselling, well before allocation of seat to him, and requested the OP to refund the fee. However, instead of paying any attention towards the same, OP admitted the complainant who already was admitted in some other college of his choice. Hence, the acts of OP in forcing the complainant to pursue education in an institute which was not of his choice/priority list, non responding to the email (Annexure C-1), non addressing his genuine request and non refunding fee  certainly proves deficiency in service on its part. 
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. To refund the amount of ₹38,000/- to the complainant, after deducting ₹2,000/- (40000 – 2000)  towards non-refundable registration cum counselling fee from the total fee paid by him, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 9.8.2018 till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of the receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
24/08/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member