State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Thapar University, Patiala vs Iqbal Singh Grewal on 4 May, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.2059 of 2010
Date of institution : 2.12.2010
Date of decision : 4.5.2012
Thapar University, Patiala through its Registrar.
.......Appellants
Versus
Iqbal Singh Grewal s/o Shri DPS Grewal, R/o H.No.534/2, Street No.2, Mehal
Mubarak Colony, Sangrur.
......Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 25.8.2010 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Patiala.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate for Shri V.M. Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondent : Shri Baljit Singh, Advocate for Shri G.S. Nahel, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
VERSION OF THE RESPONDENT:
The respondent had taken the admission in the appellant University in Industrial Engineering + M.B.A. (5 Year course) and had deposited an amount of Rs.78,925/- on 24.7.2009. Rs.10,000/- were deposited separately. Therefore in all the respondent had deposited an amount of Rs.88,925/-with the appellants.
2. It was further pleaded that Panjab University, Chandigarh held 3rd counseling for admission to its Engineering Colleges on 17.8.2009 and 18.8.2009 and in the said counseling the respondent got admission in Mechanical Engineering and M.B.A. branch where the respondent had deposited the fee on 18.8.2009. The respondent surrendered the seat in the appellant University on First Appeal No.2059 of 2010. 2 17.8.2009 and requested for the refund of the amount. The appellant-University refunded an amount of Rs.5500/- out of Rs.88,925/-. Hence the complaint for the refund of balance amount of Rs.83,425/-. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
VERSION OF THE APPELLANTS:
3. The appellant University filed the written reply. Factual position was admitted by the appellants that the respondent had got admission in Industrial Engineering + M.B.A. (5 year course) in the appellant University on 25.7.2009 as per his merit. He had deposited an amount of Rs.78,925/- vide bank draft dated 24.7.2009 and he had also deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 19.6.2009.
Thus he had deposited total amount of Rs.88,925/-.
4. It was further admitted that the respondent had attended the classes upto 16.8.2009. He had surrendered the seat on 25.8.2009 and not on 17.8.2009 as alleged by the respondent. The seat remained vacant. Therefore the respondent was not entitled to the refund of more amount than Rs.5500/- which were already refunded to him. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:
5. The respondent filed his affidavit Ex.C-1. The father of the complainant Shri D.P.S. Grewal also filed his affidavit Ex.C-2. He also proved documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-12.
6. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of Col. Jagdev Singh (Retd.), Registrar, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology (now Thapar University), Patiala as Ex.R-1. The appellants also proved documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-9.
7. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs/compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- vide impugned judgment dated 25.8.2010 and the appellants were directed to refund the amount of Rs.46,375/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.First Appeal No.2059 of 2010. 3
8. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 25.8.2010 be set aside.
10. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. Admittedly the respondent had taken admission in the appellant University on 25.7.2009. He had deposited an amount of Rs.78,925/- for which receipt dated 25.7.2009 (Ex.C-9) was issued by the appellants. The respondent had also deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 19.6.2009 through State Bank of Patiala, Sangrur for which challan has been produced as Ex.C-11. The respondent had surrendered the seat on 25.8.2009 (on 17.8.2009 as per respondent) i.e. after attending the classes for about one month. It means, therefore, that the respondent left the seat after the last date of admission had crossed.
13. Similar controversy had come up for consideration before this Commission in First Appeal No.1867 of 2009 (Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering & Technology and anr. v. Nikhil Singla) decided on 3.8.2010 in which it was held as under:-
"14. The admitted facts are that the respondent had taken admission in the appellant College in Mechanical Engineering on 16.7.2008 and had deposited the fee to the tune of Rs.43,480/-. He was allotted another branch i.e. E.C.E. on 18.8.2008 and he had surrendered the seat on 5.9.2008 and demanded the refund of fee. It was not refunded. The respondent had applied for the return of his original certificates through the same letter dated 5.9.2008. The documents were admittedly sent by the appellants to the respondent by speed post on 18.10.2008. The AICTE had issued instructions/Public Notice on 19.4.2007 to all the Technical First Appeal No.2059 of 2010. 4 Institutions, Universities including deemed Universities imparting technical education regarding matters concerning charging of fees, refund of fees and other student related issues as under:-
"All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has been empowered interalia under section 10(n) of AICTE Act to "take all necessary steps to prevent commercialization of technical education". In compliance with the provisions under AICTE Act and in the light of directions of Govt. of India issued under section 20(1) of AICTE Act vide Letter No.(U.1(A) Section), it has been decided to issue instructions to the Technical Institutions, Universities including Deemed to be Universities imparting Technical Education in the matters concerning students.
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 session; collecting full fee from the admitted students; and, retaining their school/institution's leaving certificates in original;
And whereas Institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates;
And, whereas, certificates in original are being detained by institutions and Universities to force retention of admitted students;
And, whereas the time-limit for students to join the courses/programmes is also being advanced in First Appeal No.2059 of 2010. 5 some cases unrealistically so as to pre-empt students/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 course, the wait listed candidates should be given admissions against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for Institutions and Universities to retain the School/Institution leaving certificates in original. 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.
Any violation of instructions issued by 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."
15. Similarly the University Grants Commission had also issued Public Notice on 23.4.2007 as under:-
" PUBLIC NOTICE First Appeal No.2059 of 2010. 6 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 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/institutions leaving certificate, mark sheets, caste certificate and other documents in original.
The Ministry of Human Resource 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 student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidate 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 (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 First Appeal No.2059 of 2010. 7 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 college affiliated to them.
This notice has been reiterated subsequently also."
16. This notice has been reproduced in the judgement of Hon'ble National Commission reported as 'Nipun Nagar Versus Symbiosis Institute of International Business I(2009) CPJ 3 (NC)' as well as in the judgement of Hon'ble National Commission reported as 'Andhra University & Anr. Versus Janjanam Jagedeesh III (2010) CPJ 310 (NC)'.
17. These Public Notices issued by U.G.C. and by the AICTE overrule any condition laid down in the Prospectus of a University or a College as instructions issued by these All India Bodies would prevail.
18. Similarly 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'.
First Appeal No.2059 of 2010. 8
19. 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 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."
20. Even in the latest judement 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 First Appeal No.2059 of 2010. 9 & 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."
21. 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 amount and the respondent- institution would not become poor in case it is to refund this fee."
22. In the present case, the respondent had left the college on 5.9.2008 (copy of the letter has been proved as Ex.C-6). The last First Appeal No.2059 of 2010. 10 counselling was held on 30.9.2008 by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar. It means, therefore, that it was still open to the appellants to fill up the vacancy caused by the respondent.
23. The appellants allege that the respondent had withdrawn after the course had started but it is nowhere pleaded by them as to on which date the course started nor it is pleaded by them as to why they failed to prepare the waiting list and why they failed to fill up the vacancy caused by the respondent. As per the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Prabhjot Singh's case (supra) , the fault lies with the appellants for not filling up the vacancy and by not preparing the waiting list of the candidates when they had lot of time with them.
24. The respondent in the letter dated 5.9.2008 (Ex.C-6) had also prayed for the return of documents but the said documents were returned by the appellants on 18.10.2008 as admitted by them in para 9 of the written reply. The appellants have not given any reasons why the documents were not returned by them immediately after the receipt of letter dated 5.9.2008 (Ex.C-6) or within a reasonable time from that date."
14. Therefore as per the instructions issued by the All India Council for Technical Education and by the University Grants Commission, the appellants were entitled to retain proportionate amount of fee.
15. The total amount deposited by the respondent was Rs.78925/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.88,925/- out of which the appellants had already refunded an amount of Rs.5500/-. Therefore the balance amount comes to Rs.83,425/-. Since the respondent had spent about one month in the appellant University, therefore, he was entitled to 60% of the amount of Rs.83,425/- by proportionate deductions which comes to Rs.55,617/-.
First Appeal No.2059 of 2010. 11
16. Learned District Forum has directed the refund of Rs.46,375/-. This amount is less than the amount to which the respondent was entitled.
17. The costs of Rs.5,000/- are upheld.
18. Since the respondent has been paid less amount to what he was entitled on proportionate basis, therefore, interest at the rate of 7% per annum is also maintained.
19. In view of the discussion held above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
20. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 2.12.2010.
21. The interest on the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
22. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent 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.
23. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent immediately.
24. The arguments in this case were heard on 26.4.2012 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
25. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
May 4 , 2012 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER
First Appeal No.2059 of 2010. 12