State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neha Gupta vs 1. The Director, on 29 November, 2012
1 F.A.No.: 826-08
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Date of filing: 30.07.2008
Date of Order: 29.11.2012
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 826 OF 2010
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 826 OF 2008
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AHMEDNAGAR.
Neha Gupta
R/o. House No.304, GH-39,
Mayur Co-op. Group Housing Society,
Sector-20, Panchkula (Hariyana) ...Appellant
(Org. Complainant)
-Versus-
1. The Director,
Rural Medical College of
Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences,
Deemed University, Loni, Tal-Rahata,
Dist. Ahamednagar.
2. The Principal
Rural Medical College of
Pravara Institue of Medical Science,
Deemed university, Lonie,
Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Respondents
(Org. Opponent Nos. 1 & 2)
... Respondent
Coram : Mr. B. A. Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member Present: Adv. Shri. A. K. Gawali, for appellant.
Adv. Shri. A. D. Shinde for respondent No.1 & 2.
- :: ORAL ORDER ::-
Per Mr. B. A. Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2008 passed in C. C. No.154/2008 by District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar by which the said complaint has been dismissed.2 F.A.No.: 826-08
2. The original complainant who is the appellant herein in the said complaint alleged in brief that she had taken admission in M.B.B.S. 1 st Year in the College of respondent No.1. She had paid total fees of Rs.2,60,000/- to the respondent No.1 vide six demand drafts (D.D.'s) towards the entire fees for First year M.B.B.S. course in advance. She also joined the classes of the college of the said respondent No.1. However, in second counseling, the complainant got admission in another medical college namely A. N. Government Medical College, Gaya (Bihar) subject to production of original documents/testimonials.
The said documents were arbitrarily retained by the opponents. They were not returned to her despite of making repeated requests. Moreover, though repeated requests were made, the opponents refunded Rs. 181,590/- only vide D.D. No.1306 dated 12.08.2006. The retention of remaining amount of Rs.78,000/- by the opponents is illegal and unjustified. The opponents had illegally retained all the original testimonials from 20.06.2006 to 10.08.2006. The said acts on the part of opponents amounts to deficiency in service provided by them to the complainant. Therefore she filed the complaint before the District Forum below and requested that the opponents may be directed to refund her balance amount of Rs. 78,000/- and also to pay her Rs. 20,0000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.
3. The opponent No. 1 & 2 filed written version and thereby denied the claim. They admitted that the complainant had paid total fees of Rs. 2,60,000/- for admission in first year of M.B.B.S. and that she got her said admission cancelled and therefore amount of Rs.1,81,590/- has been refunded to the complainant vide voucher No. 1971 dated 16.08.2006 and the said amount is paid as full and final settlement and nothing remained to be paid to the complainant. They also submitted that they are running Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences which is deemed University. All rules, terms and conditions were mentioned in the prospectus and the application form furnished to the complainant before admission. They further submitted that the rules for refund after cancellation are reproduced on page No.7 of the prospectus. As per the Rule No.19 as the 3 F.A.No.: 826-08 complainant got cancelled her admission on 10.08.2006 she was entitled for refund of 70% fees only which is paid to her on her request. Therefore they prayed that complaint may be dismissed.
4. The District Forum below after having considered evidence brought on record and submission of advocates of both the sides, dismissed the complaint holding that the aforesaid Rule No.19 is binding on all students, taking admission in the college and that as per that rule, 70% amount of the fees paid by the complainant is already refunded to her and therefore no deficiency on the part of opponents is proved.
5. It is submitted by the advocate of the appellant; that the seat of the complainant did not fall vacant as another student took admission after cancellation of the admission of the complainant/appellant. He further submitted that no classes of M.B.B.S. 1 st year were started before cancellation of admission by the complainant and the retention of the fees of Rs.78,000/- by the opponents is illegal. He further submitted that the opponent unilaterally imposed condition about the refund of the fees on cancellation of its admission as regards the refund of the fees and it is against the public policy and that, the District Forum below did not consider these material facts and came to the erroneous conclusion and dismissed the complaint. Therefore he requested that, relief sought for may be granted. He relied upon observations made in following case:
i) Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, reported in III (2009) CPJ 33 (NC) In that case the State Commission had held that clause saying that fees once paid, not refundable, is unconscionable, unfair and not enforceable. As per the public notice issued by U.G.C., all institutes are directed to refund money of students for period, college/institution is not attended. The said order was upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission in revision petition No.813/2009 4 F.A.No.: 826-08
6. On the other hand, the advocate of the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the rules were duly published in the broacher purchased by the appellant and they are binding on her. He further submitted that classes were already started on 01.08.2006 and the complainant/appellant got cancelled her admission on 10.08.2006 and therefore as per rule-19, the opponents have rightly refunded only 70 % fees. He relied upon the observations made in the following cases:
i. Amrita Ravindra Nagmoti Vs. Directorate of Medical Education & Research, Mumbai & Ors, - 2009 (1) ALL MR 244.
In that case the petitioner had taken admission to 1 st year Health Science Course. It is observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, that the information notified in the broacher is binding on all concerned i.e. applicant, management of Colleges and the Government itself, and therefore High Court can not alter terms of broacher first to grant some benefit to an individual.
ii. International Institute of Information And Technology, Vs. Sumer Singh, reported in II (2005) CPJ 233 In that case complainant did not attend classes after admission. It is observed that terms and conditions of the admission are binding on both the parties.
iii. Shri. Mehul R. Shaha, Bombay Vs. Pravara Medical Trust Rural Medical College, Loni, Ahmednagar, in Appeal No.522/1995 decided on 08.04.1996 by Maharashtra State Commission, Mumbai. In that case the complainant had alleged that he left the college and his seat was filled bythe college thereafter and therefore he is entitled for refund of money. It is held that as per rules of the University he is not entitled to refund of money.5 F.A.No.: 826-08
7. In the instant case it is not disputed that the appellant after taking admission in the college of the respondent got her said admission cancelled and therefore she requested the respondent for refund of fees of Rs.2,60,000/- and return of the original testimonials vide written request dated 10.08.2006. It is also not disputed that as per clause-19 of the terms and conditions of the admissions of the aforesaid college, 90% of the tuition fees is refundable if the admission is cancelled upto 31.07.2006 and 70% of annual tuition of fees is refundable if the period of cancellation is from 01.08.2006 to 31.08.2006 and no fees is refundable if the admission is canceled from 01.09.2006 to 14.09.2006. In the instant case the appellant got cancelled her admission on 10.08.2006 as noted above. Therefore, as per said rule she is entitled to refund of 70% of annual tuition fees, which is admittedly already refunded by the respondent. The respondents aforesaid Medical College is run by the deemed University. Therefore applying the case law of Hon'ble High Court in one of the aforesaid case of Amrit Ravindra Nagmoti, the said rule is binding on the complainant/appellant. Once she got admission in the college after knowing full well about refund of fees as per aforesaid rule she can not turn back and say that the said rule is not binding on her.
8. In the aforesaid case of Sehagal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh relied upon by advocate of the appellant, the complainant had deposited fees for two years with the respondent. She discontinued the study after one year of the studies on the ground that coaching was not upto the mark. She had prayed for refund of balance fees of second year. It is observed that it is unjust to collect the fees for total period of the course. In that case District Forum had directed to refund the part fees to the tune of Rs.18,734/- which order was upheld by the Hon'ble State Commission in appeal and the Hon'ble National Commission in revision.
9. In the instant case, the respondents have already refunded 70 % fees to the appellant. Moreover, in the instant case the appellant deposited fees for admission in first year M.B.B.S. only and she did not deposit any such 6 F.A.No.: 826-08 fees for the full course of M.B.B.S. Therefore the facts and circumstances of the present case are totally different from those of the aforesaid case relied by the advocate of the appellant and hence it is not applicable to the present case.
10. On the contrary, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by advocate of the respondent are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, we hold that the respondents have refunded 70% fees to the appellant as per the terms and conditions of the clause-19 which is binding on the appellant/org. complainant. Hence, we find no fault in the impugned judgment and order and thus the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
-:: ORDER ::-
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of judgment and order be sent to both the parties.
(K. B. Gawali) (B. A. Shaikh)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar