State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shaheed Udham Singh Women Engineering ... vs Navya Khana Daughter on 15 April, 2013
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 454 of 2013
Date of institution: 18.4.2013
Date of Decision : 15.4.2013
Shaheed Udham Singh Women Engineering College, Tangori, Mohali
through Sh. Bant Singh Liaison.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Navya Khana daughter of Sanjay Khanna, resident of House No. 5286/2,
Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
.....Respondent/Complainant
Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. B.S. Mann, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate
First Appeal against the order dated 13.3.2013
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellant/opposite party(hereinafter called "the opposite party") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 2 FIRST APPEAL No. 454 of 2013 13.3.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No.378 dated 31.8.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to the OP to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs. 46,250/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 10.11.2010 till date and also to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant that she took admission in the College of the OP under LEET Entry Programme through PTU directing in 3rd Semester in Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) as she was a Diploma Holder and had deposited a sum of Rs. 47,250/- in cash as admission fee. Long before the start of 3rd Semester, the admission was taken by the complainant with the understanding that if she is successful to get admission in BCA then she will be entitled to the full refund. Subsequently, due to change in circumstances, she got admission in BCA, she did not attend the single class and Ops were under legal obligation to refund the amount after deduction of Rs. 1,000/- as per the instructions issued by AICTE. However, the Ops failed to refund the fee, hence, the complaint with a direction to the Ops to refund the amount of Rs. 47,250/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., pay Rs. 1 lac as damages and Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has not come to the Forum/Court with clean hands; complainant has no locus standi; 3 FIRST APPEAL No. 454 of 2013 the complainant is estopped to file the complaint by her act and conduct; the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant has not surrendered her seat within 7 days from the starting of the course. On merits, admission of the complainant has been admitted. Lateron complainant and her mother made a request on 10.11.2010 that due to personal reasons she could not continue her studies so her original documents be refunded and accordingly, her original documents and security was refunded. She was not entitled to get refund of the fee deposited according to the rules and guidelines of AICTE for that she was to surrender the seat within seven days of the end of the online counselling, otherwise she is not entitled to, which she had not adhered to, therefore, she was not entitled to the refund of the fee as alleged. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The complaint is without merit and the same be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. CW-1/1, fee receipt Ex. C-1 & C-2, public notice Ex. C -3. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of Bant Singh Ex. RW-1/1, application dt. 10.11.2010 for refund Ex. R-1, information brochure PTU Ex. R-2, public notice of AICTE Ex. R-3, calendar of PTU Ex. R-4, letter of AICTE Ex. R-5, list of students in 3rd semester ECE Branch Ex. R-6.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought 4 FIRST APPEAL No. 454 of 2013 on the record, the complaint was allowed by the learned District Forum as stated above.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/opposite party has filed the present appeal.
8. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent had been surrendered the seat within 7 days from the completion of the online counselling. The respondent/complainant had left the College on 10.11.2010 and no candidate took admission after that date and only 91 candidates had taken the admission against the intake of 120. Otherwise the respondent/complainant is not a consumer qua the appellant/OP because they are performing the statutory duties as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha" as well as "P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.".
9. Whereas counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in II (2013) CPJ 391 (NC) "Mata Gujri College & Anr. Versus Ritika Sharma, Jagvir Singh, Bikram Singh" wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has ordered for the refund of the fee.
10. We have gone through these judgments.
11. In the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been discussed. The latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are to be followed than that of the Hon'ble National Commission. 5 FIRST APPEAL No. 454 of 2013
12. This is a case of refund of fee and it has been specifically mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur", 2010(2) CPC 696 S.C., relying upon all earlier judgments 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 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bihar School Examination Board versus Suresh Prasad Sinha", 2010 (1) CLT 255 (SC) observed that "the Education Boards & Universities are not 'Service Provider' and the complaints against them are not maintainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment "P.T. Koshy & Anr. v. Ellen Charitable Trust & Ors.", 2012(3) C.P.C. 615 (S.C.) has followed the above views.
13. According to document Ex. R-5, against the intake of 120 there was admission of 91 students as per list Ex. R-6 and in case the seat so left by the respondent/complainant was not filled up by the College then she is not entitled to the refund and moreover, she is not surrendered the seat within 7 days from the completion of online counselling, therefore, the guidelines of AICTE as referred by the complainant/respondent are not applicable.
14. Therefore, keeping in view the factum that the complainant/respondent is not a 'consumer' and that the seat so left by the complainant remained vacant; against 120 seats only 91 students were admitted by the College and that the seat was not surrendered within 7 days from the completion of the online 6 FIRST APPEAL No. 454 of 2013 counselling, in those circumstances, the order so passed by the learned District Forum cannot be legally sustainable.
15. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted. The order so passed by the learned District Forum is set-aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
16. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 7.4.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
17. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 28,600/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 28,600/- 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 under intimation to the learned District Forum.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member April 15, 2014. (Harcharan Singh Guram) as Member