State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chairman, Desh Bhagat Dental College, ... vs Archita Vedi on 28 July, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.283 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 20.02.2006.
Date of Decision: 28.07.2011.
1. Chairman, Desh Bhagat Dental College, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar.
2. Principal, Desh Bhagat Dental College, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar.
3. Administrator, Desh Bhagat Dental College, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar
.....Appellants.
Versus
Archita Vedi D/o Sh. Arvind Kumar Vedi, Resident of 712, Ballupur Road,
Hemkunj Colony, Dehradun (Uttranchal)
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
01.09.2005 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Inderjit Kaushal, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. S.C. Arora, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Chairman, Desh Bhagat Dental College, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar and others, appellants (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 01.09.2005 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Ms Archita Vedi, respondent/complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants, pleading that Sh. Arvind Kumar Vedi father of respondent Archita Vedi paid Rs.2,67,000/- to Desh Bhagat Dental College, Muktsar for her admission in B.D.S. First Year but later on, they came to know that the college was First Appeal No.283 of 2006 2 'awaiting approval' of the Dental Council of India (D.C.I.) and even the University has refused to register students for conduct of exams. The respondent being not satisfied by the query made from the said college as well as Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, felt insecured and left the institutions and demanded the above amounts deposited with the appellants, but the appellants did not refund the same.
3. Before admission, appellants assured the respondent that their institution is duly approved by the Dental Council of India as well as Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. On query of the respondent, it was replied by appellant no.3 that they are authorized by the university to admit the students directly and after the permission by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, to get the students admitted in the course directly without going into the counselling procedure.
4. The respondent apprehended that how the appellants will satisfy the conditions of mandatory lectures to be attended by every student and the appellants replied that they have settled the matter with the university authorities and the said condition will be relaxed.
5. In the month of September, 2002, a news item was published in the 'Daily Tribune' on 10th September, 2002 in which it was disclosed that three Dental Colleges were waiting approval of the Dental Council of India and the institution run by the appellants was one of them. Earlier, the appellants got approval through the court and the admissions were made after obtaining the orders from the Hon'ble High Court. The news item shook the credibility of the institution and the fear of uncertainty prevailed among the students about their future and on inquiry, appellant no.2 assured the students that their future is safe and to provide proof, issued a receipt of Rs.55,000/- dated 15.05.2002. The respondent has not approached the appellants on 15.05.2002 which clearly shows that receipt is backdated and the respondent is shown to be admitted against a vacant seat for which heavy amount was charged. The appellants gathered huge amount from the First Appeal No.283 of 2006 3 students by adopting malpractice and that caused a great mental tension and agony to the respondent and her future was put in dark, but somehow the respondent secured his seat in a reputed college after spending the money again.
6. The appellants were asked to refund the amount because they failed to provide the services, rather, the respondent was fraudulently deprived of the amount, but the appellants refused to do so and prayed that the appellants be directed to refund the amount charged to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/-, to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs for depriving the respondent from appearing in PMT in different States, Rs.50,000/- for causing harassment, Rs.10,000/- as litigation expense and Rs.10,000/- as traveling expenses and to return the original certificates.
7. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellants, preliminary objections were taken that the respondent has no locus standi to file the present complaint and the same is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The respondent was duly admitted in BDS First Year Course at Desh Bhagat Dental College & Hospital at Muktsar which is duly approved by the Dental Council of India and is affiliated with Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. The respondent, who belongs to Dehradun got her seat secured in BDS First Year Course and subsequently, was in a position to get seat in BDS Course in some other institute near Dehradun and relying upon the news item published in 'The Tribune', gave a funny excuse to leave the college. Other batchmates of the respondent are still pursuing their study in BDS course at the college of the appellants. The respondent is estopped by her act and conduct from filing the complaint. All the dues were deposited by the respondent after getting herself fully satisfied. At the time of admission, respondent enquired if she could seek migration to some other institute and the appellants apprehended that the respondent might leave the college which will ultimately lead to vacancy of the seat in the BDS First Year Course which the appellants will not be able to fill later on. First Appeal No.283 of 2006 4 Accordingly, as a special case, the full and final advance dues for five years i.e. four years BDS course plus one year internship were required to be deposited from the respondent which she and her parents readily agreed and the amount was deposited with the appellants. Her father submitted duly sworn affidavit at that time and now, the respondent cannot be permitted to resile from her earlier stand. The complaint is not properly verified and is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
8. On merits, it was admitted that the students were invited for admission into BDS course through advertisement. The respondent got admission in BDS First Year Course against 'free category' seat. Before taking admission, the respondent approached the college of the appellants on 15.05.2002 and got her seat reserved after paying the amount of Rs.55,000/- and as per the reasons mentioned in the preliminary objections, the respondent deposited the entire amount with the appellants on 06.06.2002. The respondent willfully avoided to appear in the exams of BDS First Year held in November/December, 2002 and she was declared 'fail'. Other pleas were repeated and denying all other allegations, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with special costs.
9. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
10. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the respondent was admitted by the appellants, by charging Rs.2,67,000/- in cash on 06.06.2002 . There was no counselling, no merit list, no eligibility card, no medical fitness certificate. It was further observed that the appellants admitted the respondent along with other students, putting their future at stake and charged fee extra without any prescribed norm of fee structure approved by the university/Dental Council of India. The girl student did not run away as per version of the appellants from the college, but she was forced to leave the institute, since no one among her First Appeal No.283 of 2006 5 classmates full fledgdly passed (49 out of 60 students appeared provisionally by the order of the Hon'ble High Court), and held that the appellants were negligent and deficient in rendering services and directed the appellants to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as consolidated compensation with 9% interest p.a.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.09.2005, the appellants have come up in appeal.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the appellant college is approved by the Dental Council of India and is affiliated with Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. Vide letter Ex.R2, the Registrar of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot wrote to appellant no.1 that the permission for admitting the students has not been agreed and the recommendations will be forwarded to the Govt. of Punjab for including the name of college for admission to the BDS course. Vide Ex.R3, permission/affiliation was granted to the appellant college by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. Vide Ex.R4, Govt. of India granted permission for one year to start new dental college. Vide Ex.R5, permission was granted for admitting one batch for the year 2001-2002 and vide Ex.R6, permission was granted for admitting the students for the calendar year 2002- 2003. It was contended that these documents prove that the appellant college was granted permission to admit the students and it was duly affiliated, but the respondent wanted to join some other college near Dehradun, as she belongs to Dehradun and made excuse on the basis of newspaper items, to leave the college and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and the news items published are not admissible in evidence. The order of the District Forum is against the facts and evidence on record and the appeal may be accepted. Reliance has been placed on "Vikas Palace Vs First Appeal No.283 of 2006 6 National Insurance Company", 2004(1)CPC-508 (Uttaranchal State Commission).
14. On behalf of the respondent, it was argued that the news item appeared that the college of the appellant is not approved and without approval, students could not be admitted in the BDS course. The appellants charged the entire fee for five years against its own rules and the conditions of the prospectus for the academic year 2000-2001 and the respondent finding no security, took admission in another college and the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and the appeal may be dismissed.
15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the entire material placed on file.
16. The version of the respondent is that on 10th September, 2002, news items were published in the 'Daily Tribune', mentioning that the dental college of the appellants is 'waiting approval' of the Dental Council of India and earlier, the admissions were made after obtaining the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and apprehending about her future, she took admission in another college near Dehradun.
17. The version of the appellants is that their college was duly approved by the Dental Council of India and the appellants under apprehension that the respondent will leave their college, charged Rs.2,67,000/- as fee and hostel fee.
18. The respondent did take admission in the college of the appellants and the college of the appellants was being given approval from time to time which is clear from documents Ex.R5 and Ex.R6, but the approval was granted much after the start of the classes i.e. for the year 2001-2002, the approval was granted on 17th September, 2001 and for the year 2002-2003 the approval was granted on 9th October, 2002 and the result of the appellants was also declared with the intervention of the Hon'ble High Court, as is clear from the order Ex.R7 and supplementary examination was also permitted by the Hon'ble High Court vide Ex.R8. Although, the news item First Appeal No.283 of 2006 7 published in the paper was not admissible as the same has not been proved in accordance with law, yet the apprehension of the respondent also cannot be taken to be without any basis and she was justified to some extent to leave the college and secure her future by taking admission in some other college.
19. The next question that has to be decided is whether the respondent was liable to pay the fee for the entire course or for the year she took admission? The appellants have placed on file their prospectus for the academic year 2000-2001 and the perusal of the same shows that fee has to be taken in advance at the commencement of every year. Thus, from the prospectus of the appellants itself, it is clear that the fee was to be taken for a year only, whereas the appellants have charged the fee without mentioning as to what was the fee for that year? When the admission was taken? Even if it is presumed that the seat remained unfilled, then the appellants are entitled to retain the fee for that year only during which the respondent left the college, but the appellants have no right to charge the entire fee. Vide receipt dated 15.05.2002 Ex.C3 the appellants charged Rs.55,000/- i.e. Rs.13,000/- as tuition fee and Rs.42,000/- as hotel charges. In all, the appellants received Rs.2,67,000/- in cash from the respondent on 06.06.2002. As such, the appellants are liable to refund Rs.2,12,000/- (267000-55000) along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 06.06. 2002 till payment. The appellants are also liable to refund the proportionate hostel fee of the period during which the respondent did not stay in the hotel. It is made clear that the appellants can charge the hostel fee for the period the respondent stayed in the hostel, but not for the period she did not stay in the hostel. The order of the District Forum requires to be modified.
20. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is disposed of and the impugned order dated 01.09.2005 under appeal passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellants are entitled to charge the fee for the year during which the respondent left their college and also the hostel fee for the period she remained in the hostel and the remaining amount paid by First Appeal No.283 of 2006 8 the respondent is returnable to her. The appellants are also liable to refund the proportionate hostel fee of the period during which the respondent did not stay in the hotel. The appellants can charge the hostel fee for the period the respondent stayed in the hostel, but not for the period she did not stay in the hostel
21. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 20.02.2006 and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in compliance to the order dated 01.09.2008 passed by this Commission. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
22. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent/complainant within two months of the receipt of copy of the order.
23. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.07.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
24. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member July 28, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)