State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... vs Lovekesh Kumar Sharma on 12 October, 2011
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 12.10.2011 (1)Appeal No. FA-126/10 (Arising out of Order dated 4.1.10 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No.408/08) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006. Versus Shri Lovekesh Kumar Sharma Respondent F/o Ms. Himika Sharma, R/o 23/77-B, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110006. CORAM: Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Mrs. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
(2)Appeal No. FA-125/10 (Arising out of Order dated 4.1.10 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No.108/09) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus
1. Shri Abhishek Arora Respondents 1-67, Vijay Lakshmi Apartments, Patpar Ganj, Delhi-110092.
2. Delhi Institute of Rural Development Holambi Khurd, Near Alipur, Delhi.
(3)Appeal No. FA-127/10 (Arising out of Order dated 15.1.9 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No. 1251/06) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus Shri Rishabh Ajmani Respondent S/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Ajmani, R/o H.No. V-305, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
(4)Appeal No. FA-177/10 (Arising out of Order dated 2.2.9 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No.227/08) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus Ms. Tanvi Jhamb Respondent D/o Shri Nand Kishore, R/o C-12, ODS(Old Double Storeyed), Nirmal Puri, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024.
(5)Appeal No. FA-201/10 (Arising out of Order dated 3.2.9 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No. 612/08) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus Ms. Shweta Dua Respondent D/o Shri Vinay Dua, R/o 36/28, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
(6)Appeal No. FA-325/10 (Arising out of Order dated 16.3.10 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No. 229/09) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus Ms. Pritika Panjwani Respondent D/o Shri Rajkumar Panjwani, R/o 8/30, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
(7)Appeal No. FA-326/10 (Arising out of Order dated 17.3.9 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No. 81/09) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus Shri Sarabjit Singh Respondent S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, R/o F-306, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
(8)Appeal No. FA-359/10 (Arising out of Order dated 23.3.10 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No. 719/08) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus Ms. Richa Hingorani Respondent D/o Shri T.C. Hingorani, R/o 20/47, Lodi Colony, New Delhi.
(9)Appeal No. FA-397/9 (Arising out of Order dated 15.4.9 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No. 1102/07) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus Shri Rajesh Sharma Respondent F/o Ms. Kaveri Sharma, R/o Flat No. QU-33-B, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110034.
(10)Appeal No. FA-398/9 (Arising out of Order dated 15.4.9 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No. 16/08) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus Reema Saxena Respondent R/o C-61, Rajan Baboo Road, Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi-110033.
(11)Appeal No. FA-520/9 (Arising out of Order dated 26.5.9 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No. 231/07) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus Ms. Neha Sharma Respondent D/o Shri Naresh Chander Sharma, R/o 13/402, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
(12)Appeal No. FA-582/9 (Arising out of Order dated 26.5.9 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No. 1355/07) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus Shri Manan Chopra Respondent S/o Shri Rajeev Chopra, R/o J-11, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024.
(13)Appeal No. FA-739/9 (Arising out of Order dated 28.8.9 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No.1170/07) The Registrar Appellant Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
Versus Ms. Aradhana Pandit Respondent R/o Flat No. QU-33-B, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110034.
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi (Oral)
1. The aforementioned appeals are being consolidated for hearing and disposal, because the facts of these appeals are almost the same, inasmuch as, all the candidates here applied for the withdrawal of their admission and refund of the fee after the cut-off date given in the admission brochure of the OP university for their respective courses, and before the course could commence. Thus, the issues involved in all of them are also the same.
2. The order passed hereunder shall govern all these appeals.
3. The facts of one of the appeals No. FA-126/10 may be enumerated ; The daughter of the complainant Ms. Himika Sharma applied for admission in B.A.LLB course of the OP university. She could neither qualify in the first nor in the second counseling held on 21.6.07 and 9.7.07 respectively. Simultaneously, she had also applied for admission in BBA course where she succeeded to get admission during the second counseling held on 29.7.07, and she deposited the fees Rs. 38,000/- for the said course immediately.
4. There was an advertisement again by the OP university for counseling for B.A.LLB course to be held on 31.7.07. She succeeded in obtaining the admission, and towards the fee she deposited Rs. 38,000/- in the OP university immediately.
5. She, on 10.8.07, applied before the OP university for withdrawal of her earlier admission in BBA course and refund of the fees after the expiry of the date for withdrawal fixed by the OP university given in its Admission Brochure which was 12.7.2007.
6. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the OP university, with a prayer that the OP university be directed to refund her Rs. 37,000/- after a deduction of Rs. 1,000/- as administrative charges with interest, Rs. 5,000/- towards the compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards the litigation costs.
7. The OP opposed the claim and filed the written statement pleading, that the OP varsity is well within its right to refuse the refund. The OP pleaded that according to the Admission Brochure of the university supplied to the candidate at the time of applying for admission, that every student getting admission will give an undertaking to the OP, as provided in Appendix 6 of the Admission Brochure, that he or she agrees to abide by the rules and regulations of the university, which the complainant has also given. One of the conditions given in the Admission Brochure clearly lays down, that those who appear in second counseling for admission and in case they get the admission, and thereafter they apply for withdrawal of admission and refund of fee, after last date for submission of application for withdrawal and refund of admission fee, the fee will not be refunded. The last date for applying for withdrawal and refund was 12.7.07 which had already expired when the complainant applied for the refund. The OP further alleged that the complainant abandoned the BBA course herself. The seat of the complainant remained vacant throughout the year, as no seat could be filled up after the second counseling, the university sustained the financial loss.
8. The District Consumer Forum on consideration of all the terms and conditions given in the brochure with regard to the admission, and refund of the fee, and the evidence of the parties, held, that since no service was rendered by the OP university to the complainant, university was not entitled to forfeit the whole of the tuition fee. The Forum held the OP university deficient in service and directed the university to refund the admission fee after deducting Rs. 10,000/- as administrative charges.
9. That is what brings the OP university in appeal before this Commission.
10. We have heard the counsel for parties.
11. We endorse the view taken by the District Consumer Forum. We would, however, add something more, in support of the findings of the District Consumer Forum. The respondent has referred to a Public Notice Advertisement issued by the All India Council for Technical Education in the year 2002 which the Council repeated in every subsequent year, which is as under ;
Whereas it has come to the notice of the AICTE that Technical Institutions and Universities including Deemed to be Universities, are admitting students to technical education programmes long before the actual starting of an academic secession; collecting full fee from the admitted students And, whereas, Institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such date And, whereas the time-limit for students to join the courses/programmes is also being advanced in some cases unrealistically so as to pre-emt student/candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice.
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.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only), shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidates withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for institutions and Universities 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 candidates 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.
Any violation of instructions issued by the AICTE, shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition of erring institutions and Universities. AICTE shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions.
13. Similarly, the respondent also referred the following guidelines of the University Grants Commission in this regard repeated every year ;
It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC) 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 certificates in original. The institutions and universities are also 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 Resources Development and University 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 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/- (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution/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 receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions. Institutions/universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them.
This notice has been reiterated subsequently also.
14. The argument from the side of the university is that the agreement(in undertaking given) between the university and the candidate was that the admission fee will not be returned after the cut-off date which is 12.7.07 in this case, and that it is clearly provided in the condition of the brochure, that if a candidate is admitted in the second counseling applies for withdrawal of admission, his/her fee will not be returned. This condition was incorporated in the brochure, and the candidate had accepted the same by giving the undertaking to abide by the Rules and Regulations of the OP university. The answer to this argument is that Section 23 of the Contract Act postulates that contracts which are against public policy, are void and unenforceable. The University Grants Commission as also the AICTE have declared in their Notifications and Guidelines, that the admitting university had to maintain a waiting list of the candidates. It was thus, mandatory for the appellant university, to maintain a waiting list, and if the waiting list had been maintained by the university, the university could have admitted another student and no financial loss would have ensued. Since the university did not maintain a waiting list, it acted against the directions and the guidelines of the University Grants Commission and the AICTE. The University Grants Commission and the AICTE are public bodies, and their instructions and guidelines are public policies. Since the agreement with the university was in violation of this public policy, it cannot be called a valid agreement and had therefore to be ignored. The university cannot therefore now be heard to complain that they suffered loss, since their seat remained vacant.
15. The counsel for the university also referred to the cases of Kalka Institute for Research and Advanced Studies & Anr. Vs Hitesh Kumar and Ors. 127(2006) Delhi Law Times 606(DB) decided by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court and the case of Neha Sharma Vs Vice Chancellor & Ors. 118(2005) Delhi Law Times 518, where it was held that the agreement between the university, and the admitting student had a binding character, and as such, the candidate will not be entitled to return the fee.
16. It needs to be mentioned that these cases are res-integra, because the guidelines of the university and AICTE were not considered therein, and as such, these decisions will not avail in this case.
17. The result is, that the appellant is liable to refund of fee deducting the administrative charges. We therefore confirm the orders of the Trial Forum and dismiss the appeals.
18 The original order will be placed on the record of Appeal No. FA-126/2007 and a copy of the order be placed on the record of the rest of the appeals.
19. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
20. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member ysc