State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ptu vs Megha Khanna on 13 July, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.30 of 2006
Date of institution: 09.01.2006
Date of decision : 13.07.2011
Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar through its Registrar.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Megha Khanna d/o Manmohan Khanna, 44, IInd Floor, Sant Ishwar Singh
Nagar, Pakhowali Road, Ludhiana.
2. Punjab College of Technical Education, Badowal, Ludhiana through its
Director.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 24.11.2005
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Atul Nehra, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Ex parte
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
VERSION OF RESPONDENT NO.1
Respondent No.1 (in short "the respondent") had successfully cleared pre-entrance test MET-2002 conducted by the appellant university. She was in the merit list. She was eligible to get admission in MCA stream under free general category in the institute/colleges affiliated to the appellant university.
2. It was further pleaded that the appellant university had notified/published the schedule of dates fixed for counselling for admission in MCA. She had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the appellant university on 8.7.2002. The respondent had appeared. She was allotted Khalsa Institute of Management and Technology, Ludhiana (in short "KIMT"). First Appeal No.30 of 2006 2
3. It was further pleaded that in the meantime, the appellant university had increased/sanctioned the intake seats for MCA in various affiliated colleges on 22.07.2002. The revised schedule of 2nd counselling was also published. The respondent again deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- for 2nd counselling with the appellant university on 22.07.2002. On the basis of the 2nd counselling, the respondent had taken the admission in the college respondent No.2 in Master of Computer Application Stream (in short "MCA").
4. It was further pleaded that later on, the respondent had come to know that her other co-students were not asked to deposit Rs.10,000/- for 2nd counselling. Accordingly, the respondent made an application/representation dated 27.11.2002 to the appellant university through respondent No.2 for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- but there was no response from the appellant university. The respondent again sent another application dated 30.04.2003 but neither the appellant university had replied with letter nor the amount has been sent to her. Hence, the complaint for refund of Rs.10,000/-. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
VERSION OF THE APPELLANTS
5. The appellant university filed the written reply. It was pleaded that the appellant university had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- as counselling fee. She was given a seat in KIMT. Rs.2500/- was deducted as counselling fee and the remaining amount of Rs.7500/- was to be sent to the KIMT for the refund of that amount to the respondent or for adjustment of that amount in her fee. However, the respondent had failed to join the KIMT. Therefore, as per the terms and conditions of MET-2002 Admission Brochure, amount of Rs.7500/- stood forfeited.
6. It was admitted that some seats of MCA were increased in the colleges. It was also admitted that the respondent had deposited another amount of Rs.10,000/- as counselling fee and attended the 2nd counselling. She was allotted a seat in the college respondent No.2. As per the terms and conditions of the First Appeal No.30 of 2006 3 brochure, Rs.2500/- were retained by the appellants as processing fee and the remaining amount of Rs.7500/- were sent to the college respondent No.2. The name of the respondent figured at Serial No.30 of the list. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the refund of any amount from the appellant university. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant university. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM
7. The respondent filed her affidavit Ex.C1. She also filed her additional affidavit Ex.C2. The respondent also filed the affidavit of Sonali Khanna as Ex.C3. The respondent also proved documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C12. On the other hand, the appellant university filed the affidavit of M.S.Grewal, Registrar as Ex.R1. The appellant university also proved document Ex.R2.
8. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.1000/- vide impugned order dated 24.11.2005 and the appellant university and respondent No.2 were directed to refund the amount of Rs.7500/- to the respondent. Rs.1000/- were awarded as compensation.
9. Hence, this appeal.
DISCUSSION :
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant university was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2005 be set aside qua the appellant university.
11. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
12. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
13. Rule 3.3 of the MET - 2002 Admission Brochure reads as under : - First Appeal No.30 of 2006 4
"3.3 (a) Each candidate selected for admission, after counselling, will be required to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- failing which the admission shall stand cancelled. After deducting the processing fee of Rs.2500/- the balance amount shall be remitted to the institution to which the candidate is admitted finally, for refund to the candidate.
(b) The candidate admitted to a particular institute shall deposit full fee to the respective institution not later than three days after the start of session, failing which the admission shall automatically stand cancelled."
14. Rule 5(iii) and (iv) of the aforesaid Brochure reads as under : -
"5(iii) A candidate who was admitted in the first counselling and did not report to the college. (His/ Her initial deposit shall stand forfeited). 5(iv) A candidate who is already admitted in an institution in the first counselling and seeks shifting to another institution within the University. Such candidates are required to deposit a processing fee of Rs.2500/- again to be eligible for 2nd counselling."
15. So far as the first amount of Rs.10,000/- is concerned, it was deposited by the respondent with the appellant university for participating in the first counselling. The appellant university was to deduct a sum of Rs.2500/- but the respondent had failed to report to the first college i.e. KIMT which was allocated to the respondent in the first counselling. Therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 5 (iii) of the MET-2002 Admission Brochure Ex.R3, the remaining amount of Rs.7500/- stood forfeited.
First Appeal No.30 of 2006 5
16. The respondent had deposited another amount of Rs.10,000/- for participating in the 2nd counselling. Therefore, as per Rule 5 (iv), a sum of Rs.2500/- was to be deducted by the appellant university as processing fee. The remaining amount of Rs.7500/- has already been remitted to the Punjab College of Technical Education, Badowal where the respondent had taken the admission. Therefore, the appellant university is not liable to refund any amount to the respondent.
17. Keeping in view the discussions held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2005 is set aside qua the appellant university.
18. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.4700/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 09.01.2006. This amount of Rs.4700/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER July 13, 2011.
Paritosh