State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Giani Zail Singh College Of Engineering ... vs Amanpreet Kaur D/O Sikander Singh on 11 April, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 527 of 2013
Date of institution : 07.05.2013
Date of decision : 11.04.2014
Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering and Technology,
Dabwali-Badal Road, Bathinda through its Principal/Chairman.
....Appellant- opposite party No.2
Versus
1. Amanpreet Kaur D/o Sikander Singh, R/o H.No.15335-A,
Street No.6, Gurdial Singh Dhillon Nagar, Joga Nand Road,
Bathinda.
....Respondent No.1-complainant
2. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, Giani Zail Singh
College of Engineering and Technology, Dabwali-Badal Road,
Bathinda through its Campus Director.
....Respondent No.2-opposite party No.1
First Appeal against the order dated
22.03.2013 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. S.S.Bhinder, Advocate For respondent No.1 : None For respondent No.2 : Ex-parte JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appeal has preferred by the appellant/opposite party No.2 against the order dated 22.03.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'), vide which, the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 -complainant., Amanpreet Kaur, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short the 'Act'), was accepted, First Appeal No.527 of 2013 2 with Rs.3,000/-, as costs and this opposite party was directed to pay the sum of Rs.42,075/-, to her within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order and in case of non-compliance, to pay interest on that amount @ 9% per annum till the realization of that amount.
2. The complainant alleged in her complaint that she applied for taking admission in MCA 1st Semester with the opposite parties for the Session 2012-2013 and was allotted a seat purely on provisional basis subject to the approval of the Punjab Technical University against the deposit of Rs.51,075/- as the fee for the 1st semester. On account of the transfer of her father from Bathinda and due to some domestic problems it was not possible for her to continue with the admission and as such she applied for the cancellation thereof, vide application dated 14.08.2012 requested for the refund of the above said amount. When she moved that application the approval of the University was still due regarding confirmation of the seat given to her. At the time she moved the said application it was orally assured that the sum so deposited shall be refunded to her through cheque. She accompanied by his grand-father visited the opposite party repeatedly for the refund of that amount but the same was not refunded. She received only a cheque of Rs.8,000/-, along with letter dated 28.11.2012 and thereafter, she served notice upon the opposite parties for refunding the balance amount of Rs.43,075/-, but, they failed to do so. She was entitled to the refund of the total amount as classes for the course were still to commence when she applied for the cancellation of her admission and the act of the opposite parties in not refunding that amount is illegal and against First Appeal No.527 of 2013 3 the facts, rules and regulations; which caused mental tension and agony to her. She prayed for the refund of the balance amount of Rs.43,075/-, along with interest @18% per annum from the date of the deposit till the date of refund and for payment of Rs.50,000/-, as damages/compensation for the mental tension and agony suffered by her and Rs.11,000/-, as litigation expenses.
3. The opposite parties filed joint written reply before the District Forum in which they admitted that the complainant obtained admission in opposite party No.2 College in MCA 1st Semester and paid Rs.51,079/-, as the fee and that out of the total amount only Rs.8,000/- was refunded to her. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint they pleaded that the allotment of the seat to the complainant was not on provisional basis and it was confirmed allotment. The seat surrendered by the complainant is still lying vacant as there is no waiting list of the candidates. The classes for MCA had already started on 16.07.2012, as per the academic calendar of Punjab Technical University. No such assurance for refunding the total fee of Rs.51,075/-, was ever given to the complainant and the refund was made as per the Rules of P.T.U and AICTE. The balance amount of the fee stands forfeited and the complainant is not entitled to the refund thereof. No cause of action has arisen to her to file the present complaint and the same is not maintainable and she has no locus standi to file the same. They are not doing any business.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the First Appeal No.527 of 2013 4 same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as no one appeared for the other opposite party and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by counsel for the appellant that in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors. reported in 2012 (3) CPC 615 the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appeal is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
7. The following short order was passed in the above said judgment as under:
"1. In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur 2010(11) SCC 159 = 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C. wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
8. The perusal of the order makes it clear that the complaint was not maintainable against the opposite parties, who are Educational Institution and that itself was a ground for the dismissal of the First Appeal No.527 of 2013 5 complaint. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
9. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant/opposite party No.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(Sh. HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)
April 11, 2014 MEMBER
Kumud
First Appeal No.527 of 2013 6