State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... vs Prem Deep Kaur on 31 January, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 31st January 2006 Appeal No. FA-569/2005 (Arising from the order dated 15-06-2005 passed by District Forum(North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No.277/2002) The Registrar, Guru Gobind singh Appellant Indraprastha University, Through Kashmere Gate, Mr. Chetan Kumar, Delhi. Advocate. Versus Ms. Prem Deep Kaur Respondent D/o Sh. Versa Singh R/o VillagePahuwing, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar, Punjab. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal- Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) The facts of this case demonstrate a highly unfair, unscrupulous and uncouth practice being adopted by the educational institutions, including the University whereby they forfeit huge sums under the garb of admission fees without providing any service of tuition or any other service. In the past we have come very heavily on such institutions and today again we are dealing with a University set up by the Delhi Government known as Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University.
2. At the outset we express our anguish that the appellant-University has filed which is highly misconceived and misdirected. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal need to be stated, in brief.
3. Vide impugned order dated 15-06-2005 passed by the District Forum appellant has been directed to refund the amount of Rs. 58,000/- to the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 will pay Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No.1 as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved it has been preferred this appeal. Relevant facts. Relevant facts lie in a narrow compass and are as under:-
4. Respondent deposited a sum of Rs.
65,500/- on 19th July 2001 for admission in the B.Tech programme in Computer Science and Engineering discipline run by Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of Technology in the paid category.
When she came to know that she has to reappear in one subject of the Diploma in Computer Engineering and was ineligible for admission, she applied for withdrawal of admission and refund of the fee, security and other charges. Despite repeated requests only a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was refunded in the month of October 2001. The reason for non-refund of the remaining amount given by the appellant is that respondent did not fulfil the prescribed qualification by the due date and her admission was cancelled and the entire tuition fee amounting to Rs. 58,500/- was forfeited in terms of clause 3.1 of the Information Bulletin, which provides as under:-
The candidates appearing in the qualifying examination are also eligible to apply for CET (Common Entrance Test), but their admission will be subject to the production of proof of having acquired minimum prescribed qualification, at the time of counselling. However, if the result of qualifying examination is not declared till the date of counselling admission, the admission of such candidates will be provisional subject to production of proof of minimum prescribed qualifying before 30th September 2001. If the proof of the minimum prescribed qualification is not produced upto 30th September 2001, the admission of the candidate will automatically stand cancelled and no fee will be refundable on that case.
5. On the face of it such a clause is against the public policy and against the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as no person can retain the consideration for a service which it has not provided at all. Had the respondent joined the course and taken some tuition for some period, clause 3.1 would have been invoked and that too in reasonable and rational manner. By forfeiting an amount of Rs. 65,500/- without providing the service of tuition as the respondent withdrew from the admission without joining the class and rightly so as she had no other option than to withdrew when she came to know she had become ineligible because she had to reappear in one subject.
6. If this is the way to enrich oneself less said the better. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act have so much wide ramifications against a person who provide service against consideration.
If he commits any fault or shortcoming or deficiency is bound to compensate the consumer as to the loss or injury suffered by him. Here is a case where no tuition was provided nor was even admission given nor did the respondent attend any class but still the appellant refused refund of the tuition fees paid by the respondent at the time of applying for admission. There cannot be worse deceptive practice than this. Nobody can be allowed to arrogate itself with the power of forfeiting the amount even by incorporating such a clause that runs against the public policy, good conscience and principles of natural justice and is vitiated under the Contract Act.
7. By no stretch of imagination we find ourselves to ram down the throat that institution like the University would adopt such a practice which is not only deceptive, unfair and violates the statutory provisions of Consumer Protection Act. At the most the appellant could have deducted the amount which was reasonable and incurred by it in the process of admission and no other amount.
8. The reliance of the Counsel for the appellant for justifying forfeiture of such an amount under the garb of unscrupulous term of contract by introducing clause 3.1 in the Information Bulletin which even otherwise is a unilateral contract and is not signed by the respondent is highly misconceived and misplaced:-
(i) Petition No. 3039 of 2002 Neha Sharma Vs. Vice Chancellor, GGS Indraprastha University & Ors., reported as 118 of 2005, DLT 518.
(ii) Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Chandigarh Vs. Ms. Gunita Verk, reported as (1996) XPJ 37 (NC).
(iii) Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh & Ors. reported as 2022 (6)SCALE 332.
9. The facts involved in the aforesaid cases were altogether different and the difference of facts of this case and the cases referred above sticks out for miles. Here we are concerned with the fact whether the service of tuition was at all provided to the respondent or not and merely because candidate withdrew from the admission because of some ineligibility clause empowered the appellant to retain or forfeit the amount for which no service was provided at all.
10. It is for curbing such type of unfair practice and for protecting the interests of consumers that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 was brought on the Statute Book. How can a person be allowed to forfeit an amount for which he has not provided any service? If it is not unjust enrichment, what else is it?
11. Since the District Forum awarded interest @ 9% which we find was just on equitable grounds, the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was not awardable as interest itself is compensation in terms of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.
In this regard the reference to the view taken by the Supreme Court in Sovintorg (India) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, New Delhi (1999) 6 SCC 406-VI CPJ 4 (SC) needs to be reproduced. It reads as under:-
There was no contract between the parties regarding payment of interest on delayed deposit or on account of delay on the part of the opposite party to render the service. Interest cannot be claimed under section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code as its provisions have not been specifically made applicable to the proceedings under the Act.
We, however, find that the general provision of Section 34 being based upon justice equity and good conscience would authorise the Redressal Forums and Commission to also grant interest appropriately under the circumstances of each case. Interest may also be awarded in lieu of compensation or damages in appropriate cases. The interest can also be awarded on equitable grounds.
12. In the result, we partly allow the appeal by setting aside the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- but retain direction No. 1 and enhance cost of litigation from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- as the respondent has been dragged further by way of misconceived appeal. In all, the appellant shall pay Rs. 63,000/- within one month.
13. Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in aforesaid extent.
14. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.
15. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
16. Copy of this order be sent to all the Presidents of the District Forums for guidance for levying punitive damages and the quantum of damages in such like cases.
17. Announced on the 31st day of January 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) jj Member