State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nitish Dhameja vs Registrar, Punjabi University, ... on 28 February, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SCO NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH
Misc.Application No.762 of 2008
In/and
First Appeal No.516 of 2008
Date of Institution : 27.5.2008
Date of Decision : 28.2.2011
Nitish Dhameja S/o Sh.Arun Dhameja R/o 117-D, Model Town, Patiala,
Punjab.
.........Appellant
Versus
1. Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab.
2. Director, University College of Engineering, Punjabi University,
Patiala, Punjab.
.........Respondents
Appeal against the order dated 24.09.2007
of District Consumer Forum, Patiala.
BEFORE
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member PRESENT For the appellant : Sh.Vivek Arora, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.D.D.Sharma, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Misc.Application for condonation of delay This appeal was filed with delay of 40 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed along with the appeal. Reasons have been given in this application which caused the delay in filing the appeal. This application is supported by an affidavit. For the reasons stated in the application, we are satisfied that delay is not intentional and is liable to be condoned. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is allowed with all just exceptions and delay of 40 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2 Appeal 516/2008 Main Appeal
2. The appellant had passed 10+2 in the year 2006 (Non-Medical). He appeared in C.E.T. as well as A.I.E.E.E. Test. He cleared both the Entrance Tests and was ranked at 272 in C.E.T. Examination while his rank was 402 in A.I.E.E.E. Test. He also appeared for counselling undertaken by the Punjab Technical University (in short 'PTU') in the first week of July, 2006. He was given admission in the respondent University. He deposited a sum of Rs.82,360/- in State Bank of Patiala in the account of respondents on 6.7.2006.
3. It was further pleaded that the appellant also got seat in the second counselling held on 12.7.2006 in Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala (in short 'Thaper Institute') in B.E.(Civil). The appellant joined the classes in Thaper Institute after depositing the necessary fees.
4. It was further pleaded that the appellant filed an application with the respondent University in 2nd week of July, 2006 surrendered his seat with the respondents and also sought the refund of fee. The respondents remitted an amount of Rs.32,550/- to the appellant vide cheque dated 16.11.2006. The appellant received this cheque under protest and applied for the refund of the remaining amount of Rs.49,810/-. The respondents failed to refund the balance amount. Hence the complaint for the refund of Rs.49,810/-. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
5. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellant had taken admission in B.Tech (Computer Engineering) of University College of Engineering, Punjabi University, Patiala after he was ranked 272 in C.E.T.-2006 Examination. It was also admitted that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.82,360/- as fee with the respondents on 6.7.2006.
3Appeal 516/2008
6. It was further pleaded that the appellant had moved an application on 20.7.2006 along with his affidavit that he wanted to vacate the seat of B.Tech (Computer Engineering) and prayed for refund of fee. The classes were to start on 17.7.2006. The appellant had absented and he had applied for the refund after the classes had started.
7. It was further pleaded that the respondents had remitted an amount of Rs.32,550/- to the appellant vide cheque dated 16.11.2006 towards his college and library security. After the decision of the University Authorities, the balance refund claim of the appellant was processed and another amount of Rs.19,687/- (75% of the tuition fee deposited by the appellant i.e.Rs.26,250/-) was also remitted to him vide cheque dated 9.2.2007. The appellant was not entitled to any other refund. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
8. The appellant filed his affidavit, Ex.C-1. He also proved documents Ex.C-2 to C-7.
9. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Param Bakshish Singh, Registrar Ex.R-1, affidavit of R.K.Sehgal, Ex.R-2 and documents Ex.R-3 to R-7.
10. The learned District Forum partly accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.9.2007 with cost/compensation of Rs.1,000/-. The respondents were directed to make the payment of Rs.9,533/- with interest @ 9% p.a.
11. Hence the appeal.
12. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 24.9.2007 be modified and the respondents be directed to refund the remaining amount of Rs.20,590/- with compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-. 4 Appeal 516/2008
13. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that whatever amount was permissible under the university rules has been paid to the appellant. There was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
14. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
15. The admitted facts are that after passing 10+2 Examination in the year 2006, the appellant had qualified the C.E.T. - 2006 Examination. He had taken admission in the College of the respondents on 6.7.2006 after depositing a sum of Rs.82,360/- in B.Tech (Computer Engineering). He surrendered the seat vide letter dated 19.7.2006 received in the University on 20.7.2006 (Ex.R-6) and sought refund of the amount of Rs.82,360/-.
16. The break-up of the amount of Rs.82,360/- has not been given either by the appellant or by the respondents.
17. The respondents have admittedly remitted an amount of Rs.32,550/- to the appellant vide cheque dated 16.11.2003 on account of college and library security i.e.100%. They have also remitted an amount of Rs.19,687/- being 75% of the tuition fee amounting to Rs.26,250/- vide cheque dated 9.2.2007.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the instructions/Public Notice issued by All India Council for Technical Education on 19.4.2007 to all the Technical Institutions, Universities including deemed Universities imparting technical education regarding matters concerning charging of fees, refund of fees and other student related issues as under:-
"All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has been empowered interalia under section 10(n) of AICTE Act to "take all necessary 5 Appeal 516/2008 steps to prevent commercialization of technical education". In compliance with the provisions under AICTE Act and in the light of directions of Govt. of India issued under section 20(1) of AICTE Act vide Letter No.(U.1(A) Section), it has been decided to issue instructions to the Technical Institutions, Universities including Deemed to be Universities imparting Technical Education in the matters concerning students.
Whereas it has come to the notice of the AICTE that Technical Institutions and Universities including Deemed to be Universities, are admitting students to technical education programmes long before the actual starting of an academic session; collecting full fee from the admitted students; and, retaining their school/institution's leaving certificates in original;
And whereas Institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates;
And, whereas, certificates in original are being detained by institutions and Universities to force retention of admitted students;
And, whereas the time-limit for students to join the courses/programmes is also being advanced in some cases unrealistically so as to pre-empt students/candidates from exercising 6 Appeal 516/2008 other options of joining other institutions of their choice.
In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given admissions against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/-
(Rupees one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to retain the School/Institution leaving certificates in original. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.
Any violation of instructions issued by AICTE, shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition of erring institutions and Universities. AICTE shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from 7 Appeal 516/2008 those affected take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions."
19. These instructions are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Since the case of the appellant was of 2004, therefore, these instructions are applicable in this case.
20. The respondents have relied upon the decision taken by the respondents in the meeting held on 25.4.2006 in which it was held that if any student of Punjabi University opts for any other University or in any other College or in any other organization after taking admission in any of the University/College/Centre/Department then that student shall be entitled to 75% of the total fees deposited by him with the condition that the seat vacated by the student is filled and was duly verified by the Head of the Department/College.
21. The learned District Forum has held that since the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.82,360/- with respondents and the 75% of this amount comes to Rs.61,770/- and out of this amount a sum of Rs.52,237/- have already been remitted to the appellant, therefore, the appellant was held entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.9,533/-. So far as the security amount of Rs.32,550/- is concerned, that was the refund of college and library security. Therefore, this amount was refundable by the respondents in its entirety which was already done by them.
22. Since neither the appellant nor the respondents have given the break up of Rs.82,360/-, therefore, after reducing the security amount of Rs.32,550/- from Rs.82,360/-, the remaining amount is considered as the fee. It comes to Rs.49,810/-. Therefore the appellant was entitled to the refund of 75% of this amount of Rs.49810/-. It comes to Rs.37,357/-. However the respondents have remitted only an amount of Rs.19,687/- whereas the 8 Appeal 516/2008 respondents were required to refund Rs.37,357/- being the 75% of Rs.49,810/- even according to their own rules/instructions.
23. Accordingly this appeal is partly accepted and the respondents are directed to pay to the appellant another amount of Rs.17,670/- over and above the amount ordered by the learned District Forum. No costs.
24. The appeal could not be decided within statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
25. The arguments in this case were heard on 16.2.2011 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
( JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL ) PRESIDENT ( MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA ) MEMBER ( BALDEV SINGH SEKHON ) MEMBER February 28, 2010 vr/-
9Appeal 516/2008