National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ganpati College Of Engineering vs Vijeta & Anr. on 25 May, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 347 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 02.12.2011in Appeal No.257/2011 of the State Commission, Haryana) Ganpati College of Engineering For Girls, Village-Shahpur, Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar Presently Shree Siddhivinayak Group Of Institutions, Faculty of Engineering, Shahpur, Tehsil-Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar .Petitioner Versus 1. Vijeta daughter of Sh. Mahima Singh R/o Village Tejli P.O. Fatehpur, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar 2. The Director Technical Education Haryana bays 7-12, Sector-4, Panchkula .........Respondent REVISION PETITION NO. 348 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 02.12.2011in Appeal No.258/2011 of the State Commission, Haryana) Ganpati College of Engineering For Girls, Village-Shahpur, Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar Presently Shree Siddhivinayak Group Of Institutions, Faculty of Engineering, Shahpur, Tehsil-Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar .Petitioner Versus 1. Mangat Ram S/o Sh. Sita Ram R/o H.No.15/230, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City. 2. Heena (minor) D/o Mangat Ram S/Sh. Sita Ram R/o H.No.15/230, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City .........Respondents REVISION PETITION NO. 349 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 02.12.2011in Appeal No.259/2011 of the State Commission, Haryana) Ganpati College of Engineering For Girls, Village-Shahpur, Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar Presently Shree Siddhivinayak Group Of Institutions, Faculty of Engineering, Shahpur, Tehsil-Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar .Petitioner Versus Kumari Harminder Kaur D/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh R/o Adhoya Road, Near Anaj Mandi, Barara, Tehsil Barara District Ambala .........Respondent REVISION PETITION NO. 350 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 02.12.2011in Appeal No.260/2011 of the State Commission, Haryana) Ganpati College of Engineering For Girls, Village-Shahpur, Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar Presently Shree Siddhivinayak Group Of Institutions, Faculty of Engineering, Shahpur, Tehsil-Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar .Petitioner Versus 1. Shivani D/o Sh. Mahima Singh R/o Village Tejli P.O. Fatehpur, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar 2. The Director Technical Education Haryana Bays 7-12, Sector-4, Panchkula .........Respondent BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 25-05-12 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER The Ganpati College of Engineering District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana has filed four different revision petitions against the concurrent orders of the District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana. The Complainants were four students, who had taken admission in B. Tech. courses of this College, paid the requisite fees and subsequently sought refund thereof.
2. Two of the Complainants namely, Vijeta, daughter of Mahima Singh (RP 347 of 2012) and Shivani daughter of Mahima Singh (RP 350 of 2012) had impleaded the Director, Technical Education Haryana also as OP-2. The other two Complainants, Mangat Ram, (for his minor daughter) S/o Sita Ram (RP 348 of 2012) and Harminder Kaur, daughter of Gurucharan Singh (RP 349 of 2012) had filed the complaint against the Collage and its management only. However, considering the similarity of facts and issues for decision involved in the orders of the fora below, the four revision petitions are taken up for disposal together, through this common order.
3. The case of the Complainants in all the four cases was that they had taken admission in B. Tech. course during the month of August, 2008. They had paid fees ranging between Rs.31,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, depending upon the course. Allegedly, the Complainants were also assured that they could seek refund in the event of not continuing with the course. The Complainants sought refund on the ground that they had practically not attended any of the classes.
4. Per contra, the case of the OP/revision petitioner was that the Complainants had admittedly surrendered the seats voluntarily and without any prior intimation or permission. The seats allotted to the Complainants had remained unfilled throughout the session, resulting in financial loss to the College caused by non-payment of the balance of fees. It was also pleaded that the Complainants had signed an undertaking that I understand that I will have to deposit fees for the remaining period for the course in case I leave the institute midstream and shall not claim refund of fees deposited by me.
5. The complaints were allowed by the District Forum directing the OP/revision petitioner to refund ( together with 9% interest) the deposited amounts, deducting only Rs 1000 as processing charge. Appeals against the orders of refund, were dismissed by the State Commission in four separate but nearly identical orders.
6. The case of the revision petitioner/Ganpati College of Engineering before this Commission is primarily based on the undertaking of not seeking refund, given by the Complainants at the time of admission. The revision petition also raises another issue that under the instructions of the Director, Technical Education, Haryana and the Haryana State Counseling Society during the relevant sessions, a student could claim refund of fee only if he/she had left the seat before the expiry of the last date of admission and also if the seat was filled up by some other candidate.
7. From perusal of the order of the fora below it is seen that this matter has been very directly address therein. The provision referred to by the revision petitioner is contained in condition No. 5 (A) (2) in the admission brochure issued by the Haryana State Counseling Society (HSCS) and reads as follows:-
5(A) (2) If any student applies for refund after start of session i.e. after 18.8.2008 and before last date of admission at institute level, the refund would be on the condition mentioned below:
1.
In case seat is filled up by the institution, HSCS will refund the entire token admission fee to the student/candidate after a deduction of the processing fee of Rs.1000/-.
II In case seat is not filled up, the HSCS will transfer the amount to the institute after making deduction of processing fee of Rs.1000/- and the candidate will not be refunded any amount out of token admission fee.
8. The District Forum considered the fact that several seats in the concerned disciplines were unfilled. Out of total of 300 seats sanctioned to the College for different courses in the Academic Session 2008-09, the OP institution could forward a list of only 69 candidates for taking the University Examination.
Due to such large vacancies the institution had no waiting list of admission seekers. Therefore, it was held that the question of filling up the vacancy caused by the exit of the individual complainant did not arise.
This was the situation for which the Complainants could not be blamed. This view of the District Forum has been endorsed by the State Commission in the concerned appeals.
9. The concurrent view taken by the District Forum and the State Commission is based on a finding of fact, which cannot be disturbed in the present proceedings. The scope of a revision petition filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. As laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside.
10. In our considered opinion, in the four revision petitions before us, there is no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which may warrant the National Commission to take a different view than what has been taken by the two forums. Therefore, the revision petition Nos.347 of 2012, 348 of 2012, 349 of 2012 and 350 of 2012 are dismissed. No orders as to costs.
.
(V.B.GUPTA,J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER s./-