State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sourav Goyal vs Swami Vivekanand Institute Of ... on 28 October, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1646 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 18.12.2012.
Date of Decision: 28.10.2013.
Sourav Goyal S/o Sh. Bharat Bhushan Goyal, R/o Barnala, C/o B.B.
Medicose, K.C. Road, Barnala.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering & Technology,
Chandigarh-Patiala Highway, Sector-8, Ramnagar-Banur, Tehsil
Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab, through its Chairman/Director.
2. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, Jalandhar-Kapurthala
Highway, Kapurthala, through its Vice Chancellor.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
26.10.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Aminder Singh, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Sh. Sourav Goyal, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 26.10.2012 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "the District Forum").First Appeal No.1646 of 2012 2
2. Facts in brief, as are made out from the appeal file, are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents /opposite parties (hereinafter called as "the respondents"), on the grounds that he got admission in respondent no.1-Institute in the course of CSE B. Tech. in September, 2011. The said institute is recognized and run under the supervision of respondent no.2. The appellant deposited Rs.49,980/- as admission fee vide Receipt No.2005 dated 13.09.2011 with respondent no.1.
3. Before start of the classes, the appellant secured admission at Chandigarh Engineering College, Landran, recognized by respondent no.2 and approached respondent no.1 for cancelling his seat and requested to refund the admission fee, so that he could deposit the same at Chandigarh Engineering College, Landran in time. Respondent no.1 asked the appellant to submit a written request in this regard which he submitted on 30.09.2011, but after receipt of written request, respondent no.1 replied that it would take one week for refund of fee.
4. In October, 2011, the appellant again approached respondent no.1 to inquire about the status of his application for refund of fee and he was told that the application is under process and was asked to come after 15 days. Thereafter, the appellant visited the office of respondent no.1 several times and sent a reminder on 02.02.2012, but to no effect. A legal notice dated 12.03.2012 was sent to respondent no.1, but respondent no.1 neither replied the same, nor refunded the admission fee. The act and conduct of the respondents caused a lot of mental agony and harassment to the appellant. First Appeal No.1646 of 2012 3
5. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to refund the admission fee of Rs.49,980/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. with effect from 13.09.2011 till payment and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.
6. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.1, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable and the answering respondent is not bound to refund the fee deposited by the appellant as per the rules for adjustment and refund of fee. As per the relevant rule, in case a student surrenders his/her seat within 7 days of the end of the online counseling, he/she must submit application to the college and register online on PTU website www.ptu.ac.in and PTU shall forward such cases to the concerned colleges/universities and colleges must refund his/her full fee after deduction of Rs.1,000/- and for this, vacant seat must be refilled by any other student before the closing of the admissions. In this case, the seat surrendered by the appellant remained vacant for whole of academic session, after the admissions were over. The appellant surrendered the seat of his own and that too after the start of the session and after attending the classes for more than 15 days. The notification regarding refund of fee issued by the AICTE vide letter No.AICTE/Legal/O H/01/2007 is not applicable. The appellant as per Rule 12 CET/2009 has only submitted the application to the college authorities, but not registered online for surrendering of seat on PTU website i.e. www.ptu.ac.in, enabling PTU to forward such cases to the concerned colleges/universities.
7. On merits, it was submitted that the appellant is not a consumer under the Act. It was admitted that the appellant got admission in the institute and deposited the fee. Other similar pleas as First Appeal No.1646 of 2012 4 taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the appellant took admission in the institute of the respondents on 13.09.2011 vide receipt Ex.C-1. Thereafter, he got admission in CEC, Landran and surrendered his seat in the college of the respondent on 30.09.2011 vide application Ex.C-2 and applied for refund of the fee deposited by him. As per receipt Ex.C1, appellant deposited Rs.49,980/- and break-up of the fee includes miscellaneous charges of Rs.10,220/- and uniform charges of Rs.2,000/-. The respondent has not accounted for the amount charged under misc. head and the respondent was bound to refund the amount whatever was refundable and also to return the certificates of the appellant. The complaint was accepted and the respondent was directed to refund an amount of Rs.12,220/- i.e. (Rs.10,220/- as misc. charges + Rs.2,000/- as uniform charges) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment. Rs.3,000/- was awarded as costs.
10. Dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 26.10.2012, the appellant has come up in appeal, with a prayer to allow the complaint in toto.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
First Appeal No.1646 of 2012 5
12. The appellant has filed the complaint against Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering & Technology, Chandigarh-Patiala Highway, Sector-8, Ramnagar-Banur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab, through its Chairman/Director as well as the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, Jalandhar-Kapurthala Highway, Kapurthala, through its Vice Chancellorr and the District Forum vide the impugned order under appeal, partly allowed the complaint. The District Forum has not appreciated the law, prevailing at present, in its right earnest. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the University is not a service provider and the student is not a consumer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Maharishi Dayanand University Vs Surjeet Kaur", 2010 (2) Consumer Protection Cases-696, relying upon its earlier judgment in case "Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha", (2009) 3 CPC-217, in Para-19 referred the above judgment and reproduced the order (relevant portion) as follows:-
"12. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its services" to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-à-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service First Appeal No.1646 of 2012 6 by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination."
13. Relying upon the above proposition of law, it was again held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the University/Board is not a service provider, nor the student is a consumer and the examination fee does not come under the category of consideration for providing a service. Hon'ble Supreme recently in a case "P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.", 2012(3) Consumer Protection Cases-615, held that the education institutions are not providing any kind of service. Therefore, in the matter of admission fee, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.
14. This Commission in case "Lovely Professional University & Anr. Vs. Manhar Singh Kang & Anr.", First Appeal No.1566 of 2010, decided on 10.10.2013, relying upon the above authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that the appellant, being a University, is not a service provider and the complaint is not entertainable.
15. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, the appeal filed by the appellant is without any basis and is liable to be dismissed.
First Appeal No.1646 of 2012 7
16. The District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint regarding refund of admission fee, tuition fee, etc. in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The order under appeal passed by the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The complaint was required to be returned to the appellant for presenting the same before the appropriate Forum, having jurisdiction.
17. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed in limine as well as well as the order under appeal dated 26.10.2012 passed by the District Forum, which lacks jurisdiction, is also set aside.
18. Copy of the order be sent to the District forthwith, with the direction that after due service of the appellant/complainant, the complaint along with documents should be returned to him, for presenting the same before the appropriate Forum, having jurisdiction.
19. It is made clear that the time spent from the date of filing of the complaint till today is excluded for the purpose of limitation.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member October 28 , 2013.
(Gurmeet S)