State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Thapar University vs Paarth Sharma on 27 April, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.770 of 2008
Date of Institution : 23.07.2008
Date of decision : 27.04.2012
Thapar University (formerly, Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology),
Patiala through its Registrar.
...Appellants
Versus
Paarth Sharma son of Shiv Kumar, aged about 19 ½ years, resident of House
No.1177, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 5.6.2008 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Patiala.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Ms.Sonal Datta, Advocate for Sh.V.M.Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh.V.S.Rana, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT VERSION OF THE RESPONDENT
Paarth Sharma had taken admission in the appellant college in Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology, Patiala ( in short "appellant college") for the degree of Civil Engineering and had deposited a sum of Rs.70,300/- on 30.7.2006. Thereafter, the respondent got admission in Chandigarh Engineering College in another field of engineering. The respondent surrendered the seat and requested the appellant college for refund of fee. However, the appellant college only returned an amount of Rs.10,000/- out of total amount of Rs.70,300/-.
Reminders were sent to the appellant college for a number of times, but in vain. Hence the complaint for refund of Rs.60,300/-. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
First Appeal No.770 of 2008 2VERSION OF THE APPELLANTS
2. The appellant college filed written statement. It was admitted that the respondent had taken the admission in the appellant college. Now the appellant college is known as Thapar University. The respondent had taken admission in Civil Engineering course. He was selected in 2nd counselling on 30.7.2006. He had got himself registered in the appellant college on 31.7.2006. It was not denied that the respondent had deposited an amount of Rs.70,300/- against receipt dated 31.7.2006.
3. It was also admitted that the respondent had not informed the appellant college, if he had taken admission in Chandigarh. However, he filed application on 31.8.2006 surrendering the seat and asking for refund without assigning any reasons. As per information brochure 2006-07, the respondent was entitled to refund only to Rs.10,000/-. This amount was paid to him. As per condition No.4.6 of the information brochure, no other amount was refundable. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant college. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:
4. The respondent filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and the receipt dated 30.7.2006 for Rs.70,300/- as Ex.C2.
5. On the other hand, the appellant college filed affidavit of Col.Jagdev Singh, Registrar of appellant college as Ex.R1. The appellants also produced the admission to UG programme as Ex.R2.
6. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned judgment dated 5.6.2008 with costs of Rs.2000/- and directed the appellants to refund an amount of Rs.60,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
7. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
8. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that the respondent had taken the admission after second counselling on 30.7.2006. Thereafter, no other counselling had taken place. He surrendered the seat after First Appeal No.770 of 2008 3 one month i.e. 31.8.2006 when the admission was already over. Therefore, the respondent was refunded amount of Rs.10,000/-. He was not entitled to any more amount. Hence it was prayed that appeal be accepted and impugned judgment dated 5.6.2008 be set aside. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Kalka Inst. for Rese. and Advance Studies and Anr. Vs. Hitesh Kumar and Ors, 2006(3) AD (Delhi) 666; the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported as Navdeep Singh Vs. I.I.T.T.College of Engineering, 2003(3) SCT, 224 and judgment of our Hon'ble High Court dated 24.1.2012 passed in CWP NO.12267 of 2010 (Nikhil Sheokand Vs. Union of India and others).
9. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and same be dismissed. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble U.T. Commission dated 13.2.2012 passed in F.A.No.38 of 2012 (Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering and Technology & others Vs. Ms.Ashima Soni) and judgment of this Commission dated 28.2.2011 passed in F.A.No.516 of 2008 (Nitish Dhameja Vs. Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala and another).
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. Admittedly, the respondent had taken the admission in the appellant college on 30.7.2006 but surrendered the seat on 31.8.2006 i.e. more than one month after the date the admission was taken. It was pleaded by the appellant college that two seats in Civil Engineering Department were still vacant and could not be filled and after the respondent surrendered the seat, the appellant college lost the fee for three years.
12. The instructions regarding the refund of fee were issued by All India Council of Technical Education in the year 2007. Similarly the instructions were also issued by the University Grant Commission in the year 2007. As per these instructions, if the seat was surrendered by the student before the last date, then admitting college is to deduct only an amount of Rs.1000/- as processing charges and to refund the balance fee but if the seat is surrendered after the last First Appeal No.770 of 2008 4 date, then the proportionate amount has to be deducted. Although the facts in hand relate to year 2006, but the same principles of law could be applied.
13. So far as the judgment dated 24.1.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.12267 of 2010 is concerned, those instructions were not discussed in the judgment and reliance was placed on rule 11.6 of Prospectus. Therefore, that judgment was based on the facts of that case.
14. So far as the other judgment in Navdeep Singh's case and Hitesh Kumar's case are concerned, those cases were also decided on facts of those case.
15. Similar controversy had come up for consideration before this Commission in the First Appeal No.1867 of 2009 (Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering & Technology and anr. v. Nikhil Singla) decided on 3.8.2010.
16. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh was also pleased to refer to the instructions issued by the AICTE and also reproduced instructions issued by University Grants Commission in the judgement 21.7.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.9714 of 2008 titled as 'Prabhjot Singh Versus Punjab University, Chandigarh and others'
17. In Probhjot Singh's case also, the Punjab University had taken the plea that the seat vacated by the petitioner had remained unfilled and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to observe as under:-
"The total stand of the respondents is that the seat vacated by the petitioner remained unfilled. The instructions clearly provide for filling up the seat from the waiting list. The respondents have nowhere stated in the reply that any waiting list was prepared and notified. If the respondents did not prepare any waiting list, the question of filling up the seat from the waiting list does not arise. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the inaction on the part of the respondents. If the seat remained unfilled, the blame lies with the respondent-Institute and not with the petitioner. In view of the instructions of AICTE and UGC, the respondents were duty bound to refund the fee if the student First Appeal No.770 of 2008 5 has withdrawn before the commencement of the course. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner withdrew after the commencement of the Course. Rather the averment made in the writ petition is that the petitioner withdrew from the course on 17.8.2007 before the commencement of the course which fact has not been disputed."
18. Even in the latest judgment dated 21.7.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.13308 of 2009 titled as 'Sh.Atam Parkash Khatter & another Versus Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana & others', Hon'ble High Court was pleased to observe as under:-
"It is required to be seen if the action of the respondent- college is justified in not refunding fee. It can be understood that a student, who is aspirant of doing a professional degree like Engineering or Medical, would be keen to secure and study at such institution, which has a better repute. Thus, no fault can be found in the action of petitioner No.2 is seeking admission in another institution at Karnal and then, praying for refund of the fee as she did not intend to pursue her study with respondent No.3-instituion."
19. It was further observed by the Hon'ble High Court as under:-
Respondent No.3 would have no justification to retain the fee, when the student has not come to study. Education institutions cannot be permitted to behave like a business establishment who work with profit motive. Respondent No.3 is an Education institution and cannot act like commercial establishment and there is no justification on the part of the respondent-institution in retaining the substantial fee paid by a student, who decides not to pursue his/her studies in the said institution? Rs.61000/- is not a small First Appeal No.770 of 2008 6 amount and the respondent-institution would not become poor in case it is to refund this fee.
20. The judgment dated 3.8.2010 passed by this Commission was upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment dated 3.1.2011 passed in Revision Petition No.4303 of 2010 (Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering & Technology and anr. v. Nikhil Singla) and the revision petition was dismissed.
21. As held by the Hon'ble High Court in Prabhjot's case (supra), if the College/Institution fails to fill the vacancy, they should blame themselves and should not penalise the student claiming the refund by refusing the refund.
22. Since the respondent had spent one month, therefore, the appellant college is entitled to deduct the amount 25% of total amount deposited. The respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.70,300/-, therefore, the respondent was entitled to refund of Rs.52,725/- only. The respondent has already received a sum of Rs.10,000/-, therefore, he is entitled to amount of Rs.42,725/-.
23. The learned District Forum has awarded costs to the tune of Rs.2000/-. These are upheld.
24. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that interest has been awarded at a higher rate. We find merit in this submission. The rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum.
25. The appeal is partly accepted in terms stated above.
26. The appellants have already deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing of appeal on 23.7.2008. The interest of this amount shall stop running from the date of its deposit. The interest on this amount shall be the same which has accrued on it after this amount was deposited by the State Commission in the bank.
27. This amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest, if any, be refunded to the respondent by way of crossed cheque / bank draft after expiry of 45 days. The remaining amount, if any, be paid by the appellant college to the respondent.
28. The arguments in this case were heard on 26.4.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same. First Appeal No.770 of 2008 7
29. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon), Member April 27, 2012.
Davinder