Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.8.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint of the complainant (now respondent) and directed the OP College (now appellant) as under ; “The OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,765.50/- after deducting only administrative charges to the complainant with interest @ 12% from the date of its deposit till its realization besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, within one month.” 2. The complainant, took admission in M.Sc. Bio-Technology in the College of OP-1 on 07.07.2010, by depositing a total fees of Rs.51,062/-. Subsequently, on 15.07.2010, when the Complainant got admission in the Department of Microbial Biotechnology with OP No.2, she submitted an application of the even date, for refund of fee to OP No.1, upon which, she was assured that as and when the seat vacated by her, was filled up, the entire fee shall be refunded, subject to deduction of Rs.1,000/- as administrative charges. She was told that she should enquire about the refund of fee, in the month of September, 2010, and thereafter, in the 1st week of October, 2010. The complainant approached OP No.1 on 04.10.2010, but to her utter surprise, contrary to the assurance, held out by OP No.1, she was refunded only Rs.38,795/-, after deducting Rs.12,500/-. It was stated that the amount of Rs.38795/- was accepted by the complainant, under protest. The complainant served a legal notice dated 26.11.2010 upon OP No.1, with a request to refund the amount wrongfully retained by it. In reply, the said OP flatly refused to refund the amount. It was stated that OP NO.1, thus, was deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by her. 3. OP No.1, in its reply, admitted that the complainant took admission in M.Sc. Bio-Technology, in its College, and deposited the fee of Rs.51,062/-. It was stated that she voluntarily vacated the seat, in the aforesaid course, after the start of the session. It was further stated that after making proportionate deduction of fees, to the tune of Rs.12,765/-, an amount of Rs.38,296.50/- stood refunded to her, out of the total fees of Rs.51,062/-. It was further stated that a legal notice was received by OP NO.1, from the complainant, and the same was suitably replied. It was further stated that the refund of amount was made to the complainant, as per the UGC guidelines and Regulations for the refund of fee, after deducting the proportionate fee of three months. It was denied that OP NO.1 was deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum came to the conclusion that OP NO.1 failed to produce any documentary evidence, in the shape of attendance roll/attendance register of the complainant, that she attended the institute. The District Forum, therefore, came to the conclusion that as per the UGC guidelines, the complainant was entitled to the refund of full fee after the deduction of administrative charges. Accordingly, the complaint was accepted, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellant/ OP No.1. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, as per the prospectus annexure C-1, fee could be refunded after deducting Rs.1000/- service charges, if all the seats were filled, and refund application was submitted before the start of the session. He further submitted that according to the aforesaid prospectus, if the seats were full and the refund was sought, after the start of the session, the fee would be refunded proportionately. He further submitted that according to the admission schedule, as per the College Calender 2010-11 mentioned in the prospectus C-1/R3, normal admission was from 6th July to 15th July,2010, admission with late fee of Rs.300 was from 16th July to 29th July and admission with late fee of Rs.1500/- with the permission of the Vice Chancellor was from 30th July to 31st August,2010. He further submitted that the complainant submitted application on 16.7.2010 for the refund of fee. He further submitted that, as such, the proportionate fee was deducted, and the remaining fee was refunded to her. He further submitted that, no doubt, the seat vacated by the complainant, was filled , yet the District Forum gravely erred in holding that the complainant was entitled to the refund of the remaining fee, which was proportionately deducted. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. Undisputedly, the complainant took admission in the M.Sc. Bio-Technology course, in the College of appellant/OP NO.1 on 7.7.2010 by depositing a fee of Rs.51062/-. Since the complainant got admission, in some other Course, with OP NO.2, she moved an application A5 dated 15.7.2010, for the refund of entire fee, deposited by her. The Counsel for the appellant admitted that the seat, vacated by the complainant, was filled up, and full fee from the candidate, who filled up the seat vacated by the complainant, was charged by OP No.1. There is also, no dispute, that a sum of 38296.50, out of the total fee of Rs.51062/-, which was deposited by the complainant, was refunded to her. The question arises, as to whether, the complainant was entitled to the refund of the remaining amount of fee, which was deducted by OP NO.1, or not. There is no dispute that OP No.1, is governed by the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi. Annexure R2 is the Public Notice issued by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi. Para No.3 of this document reads as under ; “The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the start of the course, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution/university to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the Course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.” 10. As stated above, the normal admission, according to the Calendar 2010-11, mentioned in the prospectus R3, was upto 15.7.2010 and with late fee of Rs.300/- admission was from 16.7.2010 to 29.7.2010. Since last date of normal admission was 15.7.2010, the course was to start thereafter only. In the instant case, it was on 15.7.2010, vide Annexure A5, that the complainant made a request for refund of her entire fee, as she got admission in some other Course. It means that she did not join the course. She withdrew before the start of the course. Under these circumstances, appellant/OP No.1, was required to refund the entire fee, to the complainant, after deducting a sum of Rs.1000/- as administrative charges, especially, when the seat vacated by the complainant had been filled up and full fee from that candidate had also been charged. They could not deduct proportionate fee while refunding the remaining amount. Any Rule, in the prospectus, that the fee, once deposited, would not be refunded, can be said to be based on unfair trade practice. This view of ours is fully supported by the case reported as Principal, S.D.College Vs Reetika Minhas & anr. IV(2008)CPJ 502. In case, the complainant had attended the course for sometime, then attendance roll/attendance register, could be produced, by OP NO.1 before the District Forum, but it failed to do so. Mere production of a copy of the attendance roll/attendance register, during the pendency of appeal, would not make such document admissible, and no reliance thereon could be placed. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that by not refunding the entire fee, especially when the seat vacated by the complainant, was filled up, by another candidate, and the full fee was received from him, for the whole of the Course/Session, OP No.1 was deficient, in rendering service. The order of the District Forum is based on correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point. The same is liable to be upheld. 11. The order, passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 14. The file be consigned to Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
