State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Himanshu Jindal vs Yadwindra College And Others on 20 July, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.539 of 2007
Date of institution: 13.04.2007
Date of decision : 20.07.2011
Himanshu Jindal son of Shri Inder Pal JIndal son of Shri Harbans Lal Jindal
resident of House No.994/5, DAV School Street, Water Works Road, Mansa.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Yadwindra College of Engineering, Guru Kashi Campus, Talwandi Sabo
through its Principal.
2. Punjabi University, Patiala through its Registrar.
3. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar through its Registrar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 23.02.2007
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Akshay Jain, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Ex parte
For respondent No.2 : Sh.D.D.Sharma, Advocate
For respondent No.3 : Sh.Atul Nehra, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
VERSION OF THE APPELLANT
After passing the entrance examination, the appellant attended the counselling conducted by respondent No.3. He was given admission in the college respondent No.1 (in short "the respondent college"). The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.40,445/- with the respondent college on 30.6.2006. The appellant was intimated at the time of admission that if he wanted to surrender the seat, then the tuition fee would be refunded after deducting 10% of the tuition fee. The said seat was surrendered by the appellant on 14.7.2006 and applied for refund of the First Appeal No.539 of 2007 2 amount of Rs.38,195/-. This amount was not refunded by the respondent college to the appellant. Hence, the complaint for refund of fee. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
VERSION OF RESPONDENT NO.3
2. Respondent No.3 filed the written reply. It was admitted that as per Rule 7(b) Part-B of the Information Brochure CET-2006, the tuition fee and other charges paid by the candidate were refundable after deducting 10% of the tuition fee of the first semester only if the candidate had surrendered the seat on or before 7.8.2006 under intimation to the university (PTU). The appellant had not surrendered the seat in accordance with this condition. Therefore, he was not entitled to the refund of the fee.
VERSION OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2
3. Respondents No.1 and 2 also filed a joint written reply. It was pleaded by them that the respondent college was affiliated to the university respondent No.2. The case was contested and it was pleaded that the facts pleaded by the appellant were the concocted story.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM
4. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and another affidavit Ex.C2. The appellant also proved documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C10. On the other hand, respondent No.3 filed the affidavit of V.K.Arora, Registrar as Ex.R1. They also proved document Ex.R2. Respondent No.2 also filed the affidavit of G.S.Sandhu, Registrar as Ex.R3. Respondent No.2 also proved documents Ex.R4 to Ex.R11.
5. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned judgment dated 23.2.2007.
6. Hence, this appeal.
DISCUSSION :
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the last date for surrendering the seat was 7.8.2006 while the seat was surrendered by the appellant on 14.7.2006. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the refund of fee. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted, impugned judgment dated First Appeal No.539 of 2007 3 23.2.2007 be set aside and the amount deposited by the appellant with the respondent college be refunded to him. Interests and costs were also prayed.
8. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 was that respondent No.3 was not liable to pay any amount to the appellant.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. The appellant had pleaded in para 4 of the complaint that he had deposited a sum of Rs.40,445/- in the college respondent No.1 on 30.6.2006 against diary No.4404/-. This amount was deposited in the account of the respondent college in the State Bank of Patiala, Branch Talwandi Sabo. These facts have not been denied by the college in the corresponding para of the written reply. Therefore, there is no dispute that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.40,445/- with the college respondent No.1 on 30.6.2006.
12. The appellant has also proved his application dated 14.7.2007 Ex.C3 by which he had surrendered the seat in the college respondent No.1. Its intimation was also given to the Registrar of respondent No.2 university and to the Registrar of respondent No.3 university. The postal receipts have been proved as Ex.C4.
13. The appellant has pleaded in the complaint (Para 7) that if the seat was surrendered on or before 7.8.2006, then the student was entitled to the refund of the entire fee minus 10% of the tuition fee. This fact has been admitted by the university respondent No.3. It has also been pleaded by respondent No.3 specifically that as per Rule 7(b) Part-B of the Information Brochure CET-2006, the tuition fee and other charges paid by the candidate were refundable (after deducting 10% of the tuition fee of the first semester) only if the candidate had surrendered the seat with the respective college by 7.8.2006 under intimation to the university (PTU). It has been clearly proved that the seat was surrendered by the appellant on 14.7.2006 i.e. before 7.8.2006 under due intimation to the First Appeal No.539 of 2007 4 respondent university. Therefore, the appellant is clearly entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him minus 10% of the tuition fee as pleaded by him in the complaint. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.40,445/- and 10% of the tuition fee comes to Rs.2250/-. Therefore, the balance amount refundable by the college respondent No.1 to the appellant comes to Rs.38,195/-.
14. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is, accordingly, accepted with costs of Rs.5000/-. The college respondent No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.38,195/- to the appellant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.7.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER July 20, 2011.
Paritosh