State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amandeep Singh Sabharwal vs Punjab Technical University (Ptu) on 29 September, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1518 of 2003
Date of institution : 12.11.2003
Date of decision : 29.9.2009
Amandeep Singh Sabharwal s/o S. Gurinder Singh Sabharwal r/o 574, G.T.B.
Nagar, Jalandhar.
....Appellant
Versus
1. Punjab Technical University (PTU), through Registrar/Vice-Chancellor.
2. The Chief Co-ordinator, PTU, Jalandhar.
3. The Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh College of Engineering &
Technology, P.B. No.20, Moga Road, Ferozepur-152 001.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 21.8.2003 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Jalandhar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Shri S.K. Mahajan, Advocate.
For respondents No.1&2 : Shri Atul Nehra , Advocate.
For respondent No.3 : Shri J.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Amandeep Singh Sabharwal appellant passed 10+2 examination. He appeared in CET-2002 conducted by Punjab Technical University, respondent No.1 (in short "respondent University") for admission in B. Tech. under Roll No.379. The appellant attended the counseling and he was given admission in B. Tech. (Electronics and Communication) First Year in Shaheed Bhagat Singh College of Engineering & Technology respondent No.3 (in short "respondent College"). The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- with respondent First Appeal No.1518 of 2003. 2 No.1 before counseling. He also deposited a sum of Rs.30,796/- with the respondent College on 19.8.2002.
2. It was further pleaded that because of his domestic circumstances the appellant never attended any classes. Accordingly the appellant requested the respondent University to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/-. He also requested the respondent College to refund the amount of Rs.30,796/-. However the respondent College refunded the amount of Rs.6,000/- only. Notices were sent to the respondents but to no effect. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed the complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short "District Forum") for the refund of the fee amounts. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
3. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed the joint written statement. It was denied if the appellant was consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or if he had suffered a financial loss and mental tension at the hands of respondent University. It was however admitted that the appellant had appeared in the CET- 2002 examination. He had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- as counseling fee. He was given admission in B. Tech. (Electronics and Communication) First Year in the respondent College.
4. It was further pleaded that as per Clause 7.3 of Part B (Admission to College/Institutions affiliated to PTU, Jalandhar) of CET-2002 Admission Brochure, each candidate selected for admission after counseling was required to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the respondent University failing which the admission was to stand cancelled. After deducting the process fee of Rs.2,500/- the balance amount is to be remitted to the respondent College where the candidate has been given admission. The candidate is required to deposit the full fee in the institution within a period of three days after the start of the session failing which the admission is cancelled.
First Appeal No.1518 of 2003. 3
5. It was further pleaded that it is not material that the appellant could not attend the classes due to domestic circumstances or that he did not get any education in the respondent College. The appellant is to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, which he had failed to prove. The appellant is not entitled to any refund out of Rs.10,000/- or the refund of Rs.24,796/- from the respondent College. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. Respondent No.3 also filed the written statement. Almost identical pleadings were made. It was admitted that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.30,796/- with the respondent College on 19.8.2002. The appellant had approached the respondent College on 2.9.2002 with the request for withdrawal of the seat allotted to him. He had prayed for the return of the original certificates which were to be deposited by him with Guru Nanak Dev University for admission. On the request of the appellant, the security amount was refunded to him. It was pleaded that fees once deposited was non-refundable where the student fails to join the College or leaves the College after depositing the fees. Only security amount is refundable. Out of Rs.30,796/- the security amount of Rs.6,000/- was refunded to the appellant. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent College. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. Amandeep Singh Sabharwal filed his affidavit Ex.C1. He also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, respondent College filed the affidavit of R.P.Singh, Principal of the respondent College as Ex.O-1. Respondents No.1 and 2 also filed the affidavit of S.K. Bhatia as Ex.O2. The respondents also proved documents Ex.O3.
8. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents placed on file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned judgment dated 21.8.2003.
First Appeal No.1518 of 2003. 4
9. Hence the appeal.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that due to his domestic circumstances the appellant could not attend the classes. Therefore he is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him with the respondent University and with the respondent College. It was further submitted that the respondent College had refunded the fee to similarly placed student. Hence it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 21.8.2003 be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents 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. Admittedly the appellant had appeared in CET-2002 examination conducted by the respondent University. He was selected in the counseling. He had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the respondent University. He was given admission in B. Tech. (Electronic and Communication) First Year in the respondent College. He had deposited a sum of Rs.30,796/- with the respondent College on 19.8.2002. The appellant had applied to the respondents for the refund of Rs.10,000/- and for the refund of Rs.30,796/- on 2.9.2002. The respondent College had refunded the security amount of Rs.6,000/- only. These are the admitted facts.
14. So far as refund of the amount of Rs.10,000/- by the respondent University is concerned the respondents have placed on the file a copy of the Admission Brochure CET-2002. Clause 7.3 of the same reads as under:-
"7.3 (a) Each candidate selected for admission, after counseling, will be required to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- failing which the admission shall stand cancelled. After deducting the processing fee of First Appeal No.1518 of 2003. 5 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."
15. Under Clause 9(iii) of the Admission Brochure, the initial deposit of Rs.10,000/- stands forfeited in case the candidate who was admitted in the first counseling did not report to the College. In the present case the appellant had reported to the College but he failed to continue his education with the said College. Therefore even in such a situation, the provisions of clause 9(iii) of the Admission Brochure would become applicable and the initial deposit of Rs.10,000/- made by the appellant stood forfeited.
16. The appellant has not produced on the file any document to show if he was entitled to the refund of this amount or if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent University.
17. It was held by this Commission in the judgment dated 18.3.2008 passed in First Appeal No.373 of 2002 "Sumit Mahajan vs. The Registrar, Punjab Technical University and others" that deficiency in service on the part of the respondent University would have arisen if they had not allowed the candidate to participate in the counseling or if they had not considered the merits of the appellant for allotment of admission in a particular college after accepting the amount of Rs.10,000/-.
18. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.3808 of 2002 "Miss First Appeal No.1518 of 2003. 6 Ritima Birla v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar" decided on 12.5.2003 was pleased to hold as under:-
"A bare reading of the aforesaid clause makes it clear that a candidate who is selected for admission after counselling is required to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- as fee failing which the admission would stand cancelled. After the candidate is admitted the University will deduct a sum of Rs.2500/- as processing fee and refund the balance amount to the candidate through the institution where he/she has been admitted. In the instant case, the petitioner never got admitted and the offer of admission was declined by her. Having deposited the fee, she is not entitled to the refund as per the aforesaid clause. As already observed, only candidates who actually get admitted are entitled to the refund. There is good reason for the University to make such a provision. This is only meant to dissuade the students to seek admission in more than one institution thereby wasting seats depriving other students from admission. In the result, it must be held that the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the amount claimed by her.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs."
19. So far as the respondent College is concerned, the respondents have proved the prospectus of the College as Ex.O-3 and as per Clause (iii) of this prospectus fees once deposited with the respondent College was non-refundable in case the First Appeal No.1518 of 2003. 7 student fails to join the College or leaves the College subsequently. The security amount was refundable. In the present case the security amount of Rs.6,000/- was refunded by the respondent College to the appellant.
20. Although as per the settled law the respondent College was not liable to refund the remaining amount of Rs.24,796/- but the respondent College has filed the affidavit of T.S. Sood, Director of the respondent College to the effect that the seat vacated by the appellant was filled up by the respondent College. Therefore the respondent College has not suffered any loss by the vacation of the seat by the appellant.
21. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that another student similarly placed was refunded the amount of Rs.7,500/- by the respondent University and a sum of Rs.30,796/- by the respondent College. For that purpose the document Ex.C5 has been proved.
22. As per this document the amount of Rs.30,796/- was returned by Amritsar College of Engineering and Technology, Amritsar and not by the respondent College. Similarly the amount of Rs.7,500/- was returned by the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. The appellant has not filed the affidavit of the person to whom the fees was refunded by the respondent University nor it is known under what circumstances the said fee of Rs.7,500/- was returned by the respondent University to that student. The appellant would get a right of refund of fee only under the particular statute and not by citing instances. Under the admission brochure, the amount of Rs.10,000/- stood forfeited once the student failed to report for admission or for that matter reported but did not continue attending the class. Therefore the respondent University cannot be directed to refund the amount of Rs.7,500/- to the appellant.
23. In the present case since the respondent College had filled up the seat vacated by the appellant, therefore, in the interest of justice the respondent College is directed to refund the remaining amount of fee to the tune of Rs.24,796/- to the First Appeal No.1518 of 2003. 8 appellant. This refund is ordered in the circumstances of this case as the respondent College had filled the seat otherwise the appellant had no right to seek the refund even if he failed to attend the classes.
24. Keeping in view the discussion held above, this appeal is partly accepted to the aforesaid extent.
25. The arguments were heard in this case on 23.9.2009 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
26. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
September , 2009 (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
Bansal MEMBER