JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal by the Opposite Parties (now appellants) is directed against the order dated 7.5.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the Forum),vide which it directed them (OPs) to refund the amount paid by the Complainant(now respondent) at the time of admission, after deducting a sum of Rs.1000/-, as per guidelines, proportionate fees upto the date of application for refund i.e. 19.8.2008. In addition, the complainant was also held entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-. It was further directed that the OPs shall also return all the original documents submitted by the complainant at the time of admission. It was further directed that the order be complied with, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which the OPs shall pay the aforesaid amount (excluding cost of litigation) alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, till the date of realization. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got admission in the BCA, for the session 2008-09, under Management Quota of the OPs. He deposited Rs.30,525/- as registration fee, and Rs.18,000/- as transportation expenses. The complainant visited the college for about 20 days but no class was taken by any of the teachers of the OPs. It was stated that even basic facilities, such as classrooms etc., were not available in the Institute of the OPs. It was further stated that on account of these reasons, the complainant surrendered the seat vide letter dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure C-3) and took admission in the Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology, Banur. It was further stated that according to the letter of the Punjab Technical University dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure C-4), the OPs were bound to return the fee and original documents, after deducting Rs.1000/-, to the student. In the circumstances referred to above, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the fee and return the original documents, but to no avail. A legal notice dated 25.11.2008 was sent to the OPs, but they failed to refund the fee of Rs.45,525/- and return the original documents. It was further stated that this action of the OPs amounted to indulgence into unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, a complaint was filed by the complainant, under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act only). 3. In the reply filed by the OPs, it was stated that the complainant left the course midway on account of his own reasons, and, as such , he was not entitled to the refund of fee. It was further averred that the story, set up by the complainant, regarding non -provision of the requisite amenities like classrooms etc., was concocted one. It was further stated that according to the letter (Annexure C-4), only those candidates, who have been admitted through Centralized Counseling, were entitled to claim refund/transfer of fees, after necessary deduction. It was further stated that the complainant got admission under the Management quota, and therefore, the letter, aforesaid, was not applicable to him. It was further stated that the complainant was called upon time and again by OP-2, for collecting the original documents , but he failed to do so. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency in service, on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the Forum accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the judgment. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Opposite parties/Appellants. 6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 7. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, no doubt, the admission was obtained in the BCA, for the session 2008-09, by the complainant/respondent under the management quota, and he deposited Rs.30,525/- as registration fee and Rs.18,000/- as transportation expenses. He further submitted that since, the complainant, of his own accord, left the course, he was not entitled to the refund of the fee, and other charges. He further submitted that according to the instructions, fee of the student, who surrenders the seat, before the start of the course, has to be refunded, after deducting some amount but ,in the instant case, the complainant left the course, after the same had started, and even attended the classes for 20 days. He further submitted that the college was having all the amenities, as projected, at the time of admission of the complainant. He further submitted that the seat vacated by the complainant is still vacant. He further submitted that the complainant was informed from time to time, for collecting his original testimonials, but he did not respond to the communications, sent by the appellants. He further submitted that there was neither any deficiency in service, on the part of the appellants, nor did they, indulge into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the Forum, regarding the refund of the amount, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, no doubt, after getting admission, under the Management Quota, the complainant went to the college for 20 days, but no class was held, as there was no facility with the OPs, for holding the classes. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, left with no other alternative, the complainant had to leave the course after 20 days and took admission, in another Institute. He further submitted that even his original testimonials were not returned to him, by the appellants. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, there was deficiency in service as also, indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the appellants. He further submitted that the complainant was, therefore, entitled to the refund of fee, as also the transportation charges, and compensation. He further submitted that the order of the Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 9. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant was entitled to the refund of fee, deposited by him, at the time of admission in BCA course for the session 2008-09, in the Institute of appellants. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum of taking of admission by the respondent in the Institute of the appellants under the Management Quota. According to the respondent, he went to the College for about 20 days, but no class was held, as there was no facility of holding the same. It appears that such a stand taken by the complainant/respondent, is not correct. Annexure C-3 is a copy of the letter, which was admittedly written by the complainant, to the Principal of the appellants, that due to family problems, he was facing difficulty in attending the College and, therefore, his fee be refunded and certificates be returned. There is nothing, in this letter, that the complainant was leaving the course, due to non-availability of facilities, in the Institute of the OPs. This letter, thus, completely falsifies the stand of the complainant taken in the complaint. It means that there were sufficient amenities/facilities in the Institute of the appellants, and the respondent attended the Course of BCA, after taking admission therein, under the Management Quota, for about 20 days. Reliance was placed on annexure C-4 by the complainant, as also by the Forum. This letter dated 21.10.2008 of the Punjab Technical University, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. According to this letter, only the fees of the candidates who change their branch, College or the University through Centralized Counseling, could be refunded or transferred to the new College, after deduction of Rs.1000/-. C-4/A is another document of the All India Council For Technical Education. According to this document, 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, and the entire fee collected from the student, after deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/-, shall be refunded. In the instant case, as stated above, the complainant, did not leave the Institute before the start of the Course, but he left the same midway, after attending the same for about 20 days. Even the complainant did not apply for the refund of fee, before the last date of admission. According to para-3 of this document, after last date of admission, at the institute level, no refund application would be entertained and processed, and the token admission fee of the candidate would be forfeited. This document, is of no help to the complainant. In Ramdeobaba Engineering College versus Sushant Yuvraj Rode & Anr.III(1994) CPJ160(NC), the complainant obtained provisional admission in a college. He paid admission fee, secured admission in another college and thereafter, requested the first College to refund the admission fee. The Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid case, held that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of college, and, as such, the candidate was not entitled to the refund of admission fee, as he left the course voluntarily. In Gitika Kapoor Vs Gujranawala Guru Nanak Institute of Management and Technology IV(2008)CPJ197(NC), the candidate took admission in MBA and deposited the fee. Thereafter, he surrendered the seat and asked for refund of the admission fee. In these circumstances, the Hon’ble National Commission, held that since the seat was surrendered, in the mid course, and remained vacant, in that year, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP Institute and hence, relief of refund of fee was not granted. In Pydah College Vs E.Mohan Rao & Anr III(1998)CPJ 339, the complainant did not attend classes for about three months, after taking admission, and depositing fee. He requested for refund of part fee. It was held by the State Commission of Andhra Pradesh that , if the institution was willing and ready to impart education, but it was the student who was responsible for not receiving the service, by leaving the institution abruptly, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the College, and as such, the complainant was not entitled to refund of fee. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case. As stated above, the complainant, after taking admission and depositing the admission fee, left the College, on account of his family problems, as per his application Annexure C-3. Admittedly, the seat which was left by him, is still vacant. In these circumstances, there was no deficiency in service, on the part of the OPs, and, as such, they were not liable to refund the fee, after deducting the processing fee. We are of the considered opinion that the District Forum, came to a wrong conclusion, in holding that there was deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, by not refunding the admission/registration fee to the complainant. The view taken by the Forum, in this regard, being perverse, is liable to be reversed. 10. The second question ,that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether the complainant was entitled to the refund of the transportation charges, deposited by him, at the time of taking admission. The answer to this question, is in the affirmative. The complainant attended the course for about 20 days, and, thereafter, left the same and joined the course, in another institute. The complainant was, thus, entitled to the refund of the transportation charges, proportionately, after deducting the charges for one month, from the date of admission, as he attended the Classes for about 20 days. In this regard, there was certainly deficiency, in service, on the part of the appellants. 11. Admittedly, the original testimonials/documents which had been submitted by the complainant, at the time of admission, in the course of the institute of the appellants, have not been returned to him till date. The Counsel for the appellants, fairly admitted that before filing the complaint, during the pendency of the same, and even till today, the original testimonials/documents have not been returned to the complainant. No doubt, he submitted that letters were written to the complainant, to receive the testimonials/documents, but he did not respond to the same. No letter has been produced, on the record, in this regard. There was no necessity of writing letters, by the institute, to the complainant, to receive the original testimonials/documents. It was the duty of the OPs, to return the original testimonials/documents of the complainant, through registered post, at his correct address, immediately after he left the course. By not, returning the original testimonials/documents to the complainant, till date, the appellants were guilty of deficiency in service. The conclusion arrived at, by the Forum, in this regard, is correct. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted. The order of the Forum is modified, in the following manner ; (i) The order passed by the Forum regarding the refund of proportionate admission fee, being illegal, is set aside. (ii) The order of the Forum regarding refund of transportation charges, after deducing the proportionate amount, therefrom, for a period of one month, is upheld. (iii) The order of the Forum for awarding compensation, in the sum of Rs.20,000/- for non return of the original testimonials/documents to the complainant, and litigation charges amounting to Rs.5000/-, is also upheld. (iv) The order of the District Forum regarding the return of the original testimonials/documents to the complainant is upheld. 13. The order be complied with, within one month, by the appellants, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount, aforesaid (excluding litigation charges) with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization of the amount. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
