Delhi District Court
Mrs. Arti vs Kalawati Gupta Hostel on 18 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH,
CIVIL JUDGE09: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 130/13
Mrs. Arti, 206/22,
Near Chotu Ram Dharamshala,
Dev Colony, Rohtak, Haryana. ...........Plaintiff.
Vs
1. Kalawati Gupta Hostel
Through Principal Officer,
31, Sham Nath Marg
Delhi 110054
2. Indraprastha College of womens
Throught Principal,
University of Delhi
31, Sham Nath Marg
Delhi110054 ..........Defendants.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 49,210/ ALONGWITH INTEREST
Date of Institution : 31.07.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 27.08.2014
Date of pronouncement : 18.09.2014
JUDGMENT
Vide this Judgment I shall decide the suit of the plaintiff filed for recovery of Rs. 49,210/ alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum.
Facts as stated in the plaint are as follows: (1) The plaintiff is pursuing her graduation from NIFT, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The defendant no 1 is the girls hostel functioning under the control and supervision of the defendant no. 2. The defendant no. 1 is providing concerned facilities to the students of the defendant no 2 who are pursuing graduation and other courses with the defendant no. 2. The defendant no. 2 is a women's college affiliated to the University of Delhi having at present the strength of over 2670 students. The plaintiff got admitted to the defendant no. 2 college in the year 2010 for graduation with roll no. 742. On her application, she was allotted the room no. 742 in the defendant no. 1 hostel on 17.07.2010. At the time of her admission with the defendant no. 1 she paid a sum of Rs. 47,710/ as required towards the hostel fees. Additionally, she had deposited two cheques for the sums of Rs. 3,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively towards caution money and mess fees as per the demands of the defendants. (2) Owing to her personal difficulties the plaintiff could not continue her studies from defendant no. 2 college and had to quit the defendant no. 2 college as well as the hostel of the defendant no. 1. The hostel room was vacated on 15.08.2010. Upon inquiry, the plaintiff was informed that the hostel fees, caution money and mess fees would not be refunded as she has not withdrawn from the hostel before the specified date. In the month of September, 2010 the plaintiff again approached the defendant for the refund of the aforesaid amount however she was only refunded the caution money i.e. an amount Rs. 3,000/. Rs. 13,500/ out of Rs. 15,000/ towards the mess fees after Rs. 1,500/ were arbitrarily deducted by the defendant were also refunded. (3) When the repeated request of the plaintiff to the defendants to refund the aforesaid amounts were not responded, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 21.03.2013 through her counsel demanding Rs. 47,210/ alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. On 08.04.2013, the defendants replied to the said notice raising false and frivolous pleas. They have falsely alleged that if the students leaves the hostel after 31st July the annual charges were not to be refunded and the amount deducted by the defendant was as per the applicable rules and regulations.
(4) It is stated in the plaint that by misusing the dominant position the defendants made the plaintiff to agree to the unilateral and non negotiable conditions to the effect that if the withdrawal from the hostel is not made by 31st of July the plaintiff would not be entitled to the refund of the hostel fees. the document containing the said clause was a standard form contract to which the plaintiff had no option but to accept lest she shall lose her hostel seat. The plaintiff had agreed to said term under coercion and of under fear being denied the hostel facilities. It is submitted that the said condition is unjustified as the defendant has not suffered any loss as the seat vacated by the plaintiff did not remain vacant and the defendants have enriched themselves at the cost of the plaintiff. Abusing their fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff the defendants have taken advantage by making the plaintiff agree for an unconscionable term. It is stated that the defendant are jointly and severely liable to refund an amount of Rs. 49,210 as its forfeiture was unjustified.
(5) In their written statement the defendants have taken the following preliminary objections: i. Plaintiff has concealed the fact that she agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the hostel prospectus. Having enjoyed the benefit of allotment of hostel she cannot be allowed to challenge the said conditions being unilateral or non negotiable and she was always having the option of not agreeing to the terms and conditions of the hostel prospectus. Even her parents/ legal guardian had signed an undertaking declaring that they had read the hostel prospectus and were familiar with the rules and regulations therein and to abide by the same.
ii. Without challenging the relevant clause of the prospectus the plaintiff cannot be allowed to claim the refund of the hostel fee. iii.Once she had agreed to the terms of the prospectus after understanding the same she cannot be allowed to challenge the relevant provision and to demand the refund of the hostel fee. iv.Since, there is no dispute that the hostel fees has not been refunded as per the terms and conditions of the prospectus, there is no cause of action to file the present suit.
v. The suit is an abuse of the process of law and has been filed to expose the defendant organization to avoidable inconvenience. (6) On merits, the fact as to the status of the defendants, admission of the plaintiff in the hostel of defendant no. 1, plaintiff vacating the hostel on 15.08.2010 and the defendant refunding Rs. 13,500/ towards mess fee and 3,000/ towards caution money have not been disputed. It is submitted that the annual hostel fee could be refunded only if the student withdraws from the hostel on or before 31st of July of the given year. It is submitted that as per the prospectus, if the student leaves the hostel within three days of admission the annual charges except the admission fee shall be refunded in full. However, if she leaves after the said three days but before 31st day of July a sum of Rs. 1,000 had to be deducted. Thereafter annual charges shall not be refunded rather only relevant mess charges and the caution money could be refunded. The refund could be made on a formal application to the warden signed by the parents of the student withdrawing from the hostel. It is on these grounds that allegations made against the defendants have been denied while it is reasserted that there is no ground for seeking recovery of Rs. 49,210/ (7) Vide order dated 10.09.2013 upon considering the pleadings of the parties the court formed an opinion that the only question which requires adjudication is that whether the defendant is justified in retaining the amount of Rs. 47,710 as hostel fees in view of the provisions of hostel prospectus which prohibited the plaintiff from claiming the refund of the amount paid by her in case the hostel is vacated after 31st July.
(8) Thereafter parties were called upon to advance arguments on the said aspect. (9) The defendants during the arguments have filed their reply by affidavit to the interrogatories served upon them by the plaintiff. In their reply they have stated that the room alloted to the plaintiff in the hostel did not remain vacant after the plaintiff vacated the same. The room was alloted to one Ms. Nandni Aggarwal on 30.09.2010 against which the defendants have charged the fees to the tune of Rs. 44,710. The defendants have not stated any specific rule/ regulations/ by laws etc., of the defendant wherein they are permitted not to apply or adhere to the UGC guidelines/ notification unless the same is approved by the Delhi University Academic Council. They have also not replied about the law/ rules/ regulations/ bylaws under which the Delhi University Academic Council is empowered to approve the UGC notification prior to it being binding on the defendants.
I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the case file. (10) In the present case the real question to be considered by this court is to the effect as to whether the defendants were justified in retaining the annual hostel fees even when the plaintiff had not availed the hostel for the entire year. (11) It is contended by the defendants that the hostel prospectus, the copy of which has been filed on record, mentions that if a students leaves the hostel within 3 days of admission the annual charges are to be refunded in full and if she leaves after that and before 31st of July a sum of Rs. 1,000/ will be deducted. If the student leaves after that the annual charges will not be refunded only relevant mess charges and caution money will be refunded. (12) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had vacated the hostel room on 15.08.2010. The defendants have argued that the plaintiff and her guardian have signed the application form accepting the said terms of the prospectus and as such they are not entitled to any refund for the reason that the plaintiff has left the hostel after 31st of July.
(13) The plaintiff is a lady who was not a resident of Delhi. She had applied to the graduation course of the defendant no. 2 and in order to pursue the said regular course she opted for the hostel provided by the defendants. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the plaintiff really was in a position to bargain or negotiate the conditions laid down by defendants for providing the said hostel. The defendants clearly enjoyed a dominant position over the plaintiff who was left against the wall to accept the said terms as imposed by the different or to forego the hostel.
(14) The basic principle of the law of contract is the independent free will and volition of the parties who enter into the agreement and the availability of circumstances to the parties to not enter into the contract. Whenever a party enjoys a position which might influence the decision of the other party to the contract for entering into the contract and the party enters into the contract lest it shall be suffered adversely, it cannot be said that the contract is a result of free will and volition. Such types of contracts are termed as standard from contracts in which one party virtually has no say in the terms governing the contracts. The courts are required to treat such contracts cautiously and the arm of judicial review is required to be extended in favour of a party suffering unjustly under such contracts.
(15) In the present case apart from enjoying a dominant position which resulted in the plaintiff to enter into a standard from contract the defendants also enriched themselves unjustly for the reason that admittedly the room vacated by the plaintiff was allotted to Ms. Nandni Aggarwal, another student, on 30.09.2010 against a payment of Rs. 44,710/. Thus apart from keeping Rs. 47,710/ paid by the plaintiff towards the annual charges the defendants have also received Rs. 44,710/ from the subsequent allottee of the room. The defendants who are reputed institutions receiving aid are not expected to enrich themselves at the cost of the students. There is no rationale justification provided by the defendants for setting the cut off date for the refund of annual charges as 31st of July and in the opinion of the court the same is arbitrary. (16) For the aforesaid reason, this court is of a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the refund of Rs. 44,710 which is the amount of annual charges for which the defendant have allotted the room in question to the subsequent allottee.
(17) The plaintiff had occupied the hostel from 17.07.2010 till 15.08.2010 as such this court finds no fault in the defendant deducting Rs. 1,500/ from the mess fee. The plaintiff has claimed an interest @ 24% per annum which appears to be totally unjustified. In the opinion of the court an interest @ 6% per annum from 15.08.2010 till the realization of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 44,710/ shall suffice to meet the ends of justice. Plaintiff accordingly is held entitled to the said rate of interest. She is also held entitled to the costs of the suit.
Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on 18.09.2014 (Jitendra Pratap Singh)
Civil Judge, Central (09)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
18.09.2014
Suit No. 130/13
18.09.2014
Present: None
Vide a separate judgment of even date the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the suit.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(Jitendra Pratap Singh) Civil Judge, Central (09) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 18.09.2014