State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Principal, S.U.S. College Of ... vs Sukhbir Mittal on 22 September, 2010
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1870 of 2009.
Date of Institution: 31.12.2009.
Date of Decision: 22.09.2010.
The Principal, S.U.S. College of Engineering & Technology, Tangori, District
Mohali, through Sh. Randhir Singh Paul, Sr. Assistant.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Sukhbir Mittal, aged 19 years, son of Sh. Ramesh Mittal, Resident of B-13/1657,
Court Road, Lakhi Colony, Barnala.
.....Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
03.12.2009 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
Before:-
Sh. Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Narinder Lucky, Advocate for
Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. Vijay Goyal, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
The Principal, S.U.S. College of Engineering & Technology, Tangori, District Mohali, (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 03.12.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the respondent(hereinafter to be called "complainant") got admission in S.U.S. College of Engineering & Technology, Tangori, District Mohali, in the course of Electrical Engineering during first counseling in September, 2009 and deposited a fee of Rs.44,290/- vide receipt dated 8.9.2009. During the second counseling, he came to know that a seat in Mechanical Engineering trade was lying vacant in Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Bathinda and that college being near to his home town, the complainant got admission in the said college by paying Rs.41,400/-. The complainant requested the appellant to refund the fee of Rs.44,290/- but the First Appeal No.1870 of 2009 2 appellant declined to pay the same. The complainant pleaded that act of the appellant, refusing to refund the fee paid by him, amounts to unfair trade practice and prayed that above said fee paid by him, be refunded to him with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
3. The appellant in written statement took the plea that the complainant attended the classes from 8.9.2009 to 1.10.2009. Second counseling was conducted by the respective colleges of their own with which the Punjab Technical University has no concern. It was further pleaded that that the fee to a student leaving the course, is refundable only if the seat which falls vacant, is filled on or before the last date of admission (i.e. 15.10.2009 in this case) and if the seat remained vacant, then securities will be refundable after the no due certificate submitted by the student as per the guidelines of All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE). The complainant has not furnished to the appellant the allotment letter of seat in Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Bathinda, issued by the Punjab Technical University. In case, second counseling is conducted by the Punjab Technical University and the seat is allotted to the student in another college, then the fee paid by the student, is transferable to the new college and not payable to the student in cash. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
5. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to refund Rs.44,200/- after deducting processing charges of Rs.1000/- and proportionate fee for the period from 8.9.2009 to 1.10.2009 for which the complainant studied, with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 2.10.2009 till the actual date of realization. Rs.1000/- were awarded as costs of litigation.
First Appeal No.1870 of 2009 3
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.12.2009, the appellant has come up in appeal.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the guidelines issued by the All India Council of Technical Education, Rule- 10 is applicable and only Rs.1000/- has to be deducted as processing fee or the fee has to be transferred to the other college, but in this case, the fee was not transferred. This has to be done only when the seat falling vacant, has been filled by the other candidate on the waiting list, by the last date of admission. In this case, since the complainant vacated the seat in third semester and the seat remained vacant, as such, the appellant is not required to return the fee deposited by the complainant.
9. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the complainant that the seat vacated by the complainant, was filled up but the fee paid by the complainant, was also not transferred to the college, where the complainant took admission and, as such, the complainant is entitled to get the fee refunded.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. The guidelines Ex.R4 relied upon by the learned District Forum, are applicable to the cases where a student or candidate withdraws before the starting of the courses and the fee is liable to be refunded after deducting a sum of Rs.1000/- in case, the seat is filled. The relevant portion of Ex.R4, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced as under:-
"In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the courses, the wait listed candidates should be given admission 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 to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would not be First Appeal No.1870 of 2009 4 permissible for institutions to retain the School/Institution Leaving Certificate 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 wherever applicable.
12. In fact, the Rules Ex.R5 placed on the file, are applicable for admission to 2nd year/3rd semester of B. Tech. & B. Pharmacy, provided a candidate changes his/her college/branch through a centralized counseling conducted by the PTU and in that case, the entire fee shall be transferred or refunded to the new college allotted, after deducting a processing fee of Rs.1000/- only. Under Rule-10, Clause-(b), the entire fee collected from the student, can be refunded to him after deduction of processing fee of Rs.1000/-, provided the seat consequently falling vacant, has been filled by the other candidate on the waiting list, by the last date of admission. Admittedly, the complainant was a student of 3rd semester of B. Tech. Electrical Engineering when he migrated to Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Bathinda. There is no evidence on record that the seat was filled in the 3rd semester, after it was vacated by the complainant. The waiting list is prepared only at the time of start of the session. Even otherwise, it was for the complainant to prove that he is entitled for refund of the fee because the seat vacated by him, was filled by the appellant. In that case also, instead of paying Rs.41,400/- vide receipt Ex.C2 to Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering & Technology, Bathinda, the complainant should have requested the appellant to transfer the fee paid by him to the above college where he took the admission. But the complainant has not made any such request nor brought any material on record to prove the same. It is also not proved that he was selected through a centralized counseling. As such, the complainant is not entitled to any refund of the fee.
First Appeal No.1870 of 2009 5
13. The order of the learned District Forum being erroneous and contrary to the rules and guidelines of All India Council of Technical Education, can not be sustained.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order under appeal, is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
15. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25, 000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 31.12.2009. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
16. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.09.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Amarpreet Sharma) Member September 22, 2010.
(Gurmeet Singh)