State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Giani Zail Singh College Of Engineering ... vs Domesh Garg on 19 March, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.53 of 2011
Date of Institution: 12.01.2011.
Date of Decision: 19.03.2015.
Giani Zail Singh College of Engineering and Technology, Bathinda
through its Principal Dr.T.S.Sidhu.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
Domesh Garg S/o Mukesh Kumar Garg, R/o H.No.34, Bharat Nagar,
Bathinda.
....Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against order dated 19.11.2010
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Raj Kaushik, Advocate
.............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellant (the opposite party in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent herein (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 19.11.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Bathinda (in short, "the District Forum"), accepting the complaint of the complainant, directing the OP to refund Rs.14,300/-, in case of non-compliance thereof, the First Appeal No.53 of 2011 2 interest @9% would accrue on the amount of Rs.14,300/- w.e.f. the date of 31st day of the receipt of order till realization. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the opposite party now appellant.
2. The complainant Domesh Garg has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OP on the averments that OP is Engineering College, being an educational institution at Bathinda. The complainant deposited fee of Rs.38,500/- for admission in B.Tech. Electronics and Communication on 12.09.2008 with OP. That the complainant thereafter got admission in Punjab University at Chandigarh and surrendered the seat to OP on 19.09.2008 well before the start of session. The OP accepted the request of the complainant, vide letter no.8613 dated 25.09.2008 and admitted another student ibid. That OP refunded the fee of Rs.23,200/-, vide letter no.9902 dated 18.11.2008 and withheld the balance fee of Rs.15,300/- without any valid reason. That as per the instructions of All India Council for Technical Education, only an amount of Rs.1000/- could be deducted on account of processing fee. That OP has illegally withheld the balance amount of fee of Rs.14,300/-, whereas the OP is entitled to withhold the processing fee of Rs.1000/- only and not more than that. The complainant wrote letters dated 29.11.2008, 28.05.2010, 28.07.2010, and 02.08.2010 to OP First Appeal No.53 of 2011 3 for refund of balance fee of Rs.14,300/-, but to no effect. The OP had acted in most unfair manner. The complainant has filed the complaint directing the OP to refund the balance amount of the deposited fee by him with OP of Rs.14,300/- and also prayed for compensation for mental harassment, besides praying for awarding of interest @ 18% p.a. on the balance, withheld amount of fee of the complainant by OP.
3. Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed the written reply, raising legal objections that complaint is baseless and meritless. Due possible refund has already been paid to the complainant, who is not entitled to any further claim therefor. The OP affiliated to Punjab Technical University Jalandhar (PTU) and is bound by Rules and Instructions framed by the PTU, which rules govern the matter of refund of fee. The OP has acted in accordance with the said Rules and after calculating the due refund, has already paid the balance amount to the complainant. The statutory Rules framed by PTU Jalandhar regarding refund of fee are to be followed in letter and spirit by the OP. On merits, OP pleaded that complainant surrendered his seat on 19.09.2008, whereas the academic session has already started in August 2008. It was vehemently denied that complainant surrendered his seat before start of academic session with OP. It was further averred in the written reply that complainant surrendered his seat voluntarily with his own free will without any First Appeal No.53 of 2011 4 disabling factor on the part of the OP. The fee, which was due to the complainant has already been refunded to the extent of Rs.23,200/-, vide letter dated 18.11.2008. The balance fee has been deducted, as per PTU Rules and Regulations, as the institute is affiliated with PTU Jalandhar. As per letter no.PTU/REG/19097 dated 22.07.2010 of PTU has mandated as under :
"If a student leave after starting the session 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 deduction of monthly fee and proportional hostel rent, wherever application."
Since the academic session started in the year 2008 and the complainant surrendered his seat on 19.09.2008, so following deductions were made by the institute, which are legal and valid :-
a) Counseling fee deducted Rs.2500/- b) Cost of brochure deducted Rs.200/- c) Two months fee deducted Rs.12,800/-
This is also duly notified it in the prospect issued by PTU that counseling fee is non-refundable. The OP denied the other averments of the complainant by denying any unfair trade practice or deficient service on its part. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint of the complainant.
First Appeal No.53 of 2011 5
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.9 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. Tejinder Singh, Principal Ex.R-1 along with documents Ex.R-2 to R-5 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Bathinda accepted the complaint of the complainant, as stated above. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Bathinda dated 19.11.2010, the OP now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The complainant seeks the refund of entire amount deposited by him by deducting the processing fee of Rs.1000/- only. The strong reliance of the complainant is on the guidelines issued by Ministry of Human Resources Development and University Grants Commission to the effect that where seat has been filled up and not remained vacant, then only processing fee of Rs.1000/- is to be deducted. Guidelines in this regard are reproduced as under:
"It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGS) that institutions and universities including institutions deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of the studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students, and, retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original. The institutions and Universities are also First Appeal No.53 of 2011 6 reportedly confiscating the fee paid, if a student fails to join by such dates. The Commission is of the view that the institutions/Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students, which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original.
The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University of Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates in the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidate 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/- (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institutions/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. 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.
The Universities/Institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The UGC shall on its own or on receipts of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions. Institutions/Universities are also required to covey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them. First Appeal No.53 of 2011 7 This notice has been reiterated subsequently also."
6. On the basis of reliance of the complainant on the above guidelines of UGC, the Apex body to regulate the activities of various Universities/Institutions and colleges, the submission is that the processing of fee not more than Rs.1000/- shall be deducted and rest of the fee is to be refunded, if the seat remained vacant and has not been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission. On the other hand, the counsel for the OP argued that, as per the PTU's rules, they are justified in deducting the amount of Rs.25,00/- as counseling fee, Rs.200/- as cost of brochure and Rs.12,800/- as fee of two months. The submission of counsel for the OP, now appellant, is that academic session started in August 2008 and complainant surrendered his seat on 19.09.2008, as such the OP is justified in deducting the amount of Rs.12,800/- for two months fee. The OP justified its stand on the basis of the Rules and Regulations framed by the PTU Jalandhar, as per letter no.PTU/REG/19097 dated 22.10.2007 Ex.R-4 (Supra).
7. We have examined the evidence on the record of the parties. The complainant and his father has been moving the OP from time to time, vide letters Ex.C-2 to C-5, for refund of balance fee of Rs.14,300/-. Ex.C-6 is the letter no.3825 dated 11.08.2010, vide which, the amount of Rs.23,200/- was refunded to the complainant by the OP. Ex.C-7 is the letter regarding surrender of seat by the complainant voluntarily on 19.09.2008. Ex.C-8 are the First Appeal No.53 of 2011 8 guidelines issued by PTU Jalandhar regarding the refund of fee by deducting the fee, as set out therein. The OP relied upon on affidavit of Dr. Tejinder Singh Principal of OP Ex.R-1, that OP is a educational institution affiliated with PTU Jalandhar and is bound by the Rules and Regulations framed by PTU and fee deducted by it, as per guidelines of the University. Ex.R-2 is the proposed academic calendar regarding odd semester and even semester 2008-2009. Ex.R-3 is the letter of complainant addressed to OP regarding surrendering the seat and refund of the fee. Ex.R-4 is the letter regarding refund of fee of PTU. Ex.R-5 is the public notice with regard to instructions to the Technical Institutions, Universities including deemed to be Universities in this regard for deduction of fee.
8. The counsel for the complainant referred to law laid down by the National Commission in case "Registrar Andhra University Vs. Janjanam Jagddeesh" revision petition no.2926 of 2009 decided on 06.07.2010 to the effect that OPs to refund the balance amount with 6% interest p.a. deposited by the complainant. The counsel for the OP strongly relied upon law laid down by the Apex Court in case "P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors." Reported in 2012(3) CPC-615 and the Apex Court passed short order to this effect that "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 First Appeal No.53 of 2011 9 all earlier held that education 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 Consumer Protection Act, 1986".
The Apex Court has made it clear that educational institutions are not providing any kind of service regarding admission fee, etc. There cannot be a question of deficiency in service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The law laid down by the Apex Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It has overriding effect over all the courts and tribunal in the country. Since, the Apex Court has settled the matter once for all holding in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust (Supra), that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is excluded in all types of matters of admission fees, etc. of Education Institutes, because there cannot be any deficiency of service. Our own State Commission has also so observed in case "Giani Zail Singh Vs. Amanpreet Kaur and anr." in F.A. No.527 of 2013 decided on 11.04.2014 to the effect that complaint before Consumer Fora is not maintainable, as OPs are education institution and that itself is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. Consequently, the order of the District Forum is not sustainable in this appeal, in view of the mandate of Apex Court in case P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Trust (Supra). First Appeal No.53 of 2011 10
9. Accordingly, we accept the appeal of the appellant and by setting aside the order of the District Forum Bathinda dated 19.11.2010 under challenge in this case, the complaint filed by the complainant is ordered to be dismissed.
10. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.9650/- with this Commission at the time of filing this appeal. This amount be remitted by the registry to appellant in this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, after the expiry of 45 days.
11. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER March 19, 2015.
(MM)