State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Guru Nanak Dev Dental College & Research ... vs Monika Daughter Of Pawan Kumar Jindal on 17 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1686 of 2003
Date of institution : 16.12.2003
Date of decision : 17.11.2009
Guru Nanak Dev Dental College & Research Institute, Sunam through its
Principal.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Monika daughter of Pawan Kumar Jindal, resident of 149, Phase-II, Urban
Estate, Patiala.
......Contesting Respondent
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Research,
Punjab, Chandigarh.
3. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot through its Registrar.
..........Proforma Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 28.10.2003 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur .
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri Mukand Gupta, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 : Shri H.S. Parwana, Advocate for
Shri N.K. Zakhmi, Advocate.
For respondents No.2&3 : Ex parte.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
This order will dispose of two appeals, namely, First Appeal No.1686 of 2003 (Guru Nanak Dev Dental College & Research Institute v. Monika and others) and First Appeal No.1687 of 2003 (Guru Nanak Dev Dental College & Research Institute v. Gurpreet Kaur and others) as common questions of law and First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 2 facts are involved in both these appeals. Facts are taken from First Appeal No.1686 of 2003 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Monika respondent (in short "Monika") had appeared in the Punjab Medical Entrance Test (in short "PMET") held in 2000 by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar on behalf of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot respondent No.3 (in short "the University"). She was selected for admission in the B.D.S. Course against the payment seat. She was admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Dental College, Sunam appellant (in short "appellant College"). Monika deposited a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- on account of tuition fee/hostel fee/mess charges/security etc. on 31.8.2000 with the appellant College.
3. It was further pleaded that the University conducted a joint migration test (in short "JMT") on 29.3.2002 to fill up the vacant seats in Government Dental College and Hospital, Patiala and Government Dental College and Hospital, Amritsar and the candidates were required to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fee for the purpose of said test. It was deposited by Monika. For appearing in the joint migration test 2002, 'no objection certificate' was required from the appellant College. It was given by the appellant College to Monika enabling her to appear in the joint migration test 2002. Accordingly Monika appeared in the joint migration test 2002. The appellant College had demanded the enhancement fee for two years from Monika at the rate of 15% on the plea that fee had been enhanced by the State Government retrospectively and Monika was compelled to deposit the fee. Accordingly Monika deposited a sum of Rs.3,300/- as enhanced fee with the appellant College on 5.3.2002 but no receipt to that effect was issued by the appellant College.
4. It was further pleaded that the University held counseling on 4.4.2002. Monika had qualified the JMT-2001-2002. The original certificates of Monika were required for the purpose of counseling. Monika approached the appellant College for collecting the original educational certificates. The appellant First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 3 College again demanded Rs.30,500/- as tuition fee and enhanced fee of Rs.3,300/- at the rate of 15% for the remaining two years. It was deposited by Monika on 1.4.2002.
5. It was further pleaded that Monika has deposited a sum of Rs.7,800/- as enhanced fee at the rate of 15% for four years and Rs.26,000/- as tuition fee for the remaining two years with the appellant College. However the appellant College had not issued any receipt for that amount on the plea that the receipts would be sent within a period of one month at her residential address. Monika was forced to write application to give up the deposited tuition fee/security on 1.4.2002 by an official of the appellant College. The said official also obtained the signatures of Monika on blank papers.
6. It was further pleaded that Monika wrote the letter in May 2002 to the appellant College demanding the receipts of the amounts deposited by her with the appellant College but no such receipt was issued. Monika had also deposited a sum of Rs.36,000/- vide receipt dated 30.7.2001 and a sum of Rs.13,000/- vide receipt dated 30.7.2001 as fee and other charges. The total amount of Rs.49,000/- was deposited by her. Monika left the appellant College after migration by the University in the month of April 2002.
7. It was further pleaded that after her migration to Government Dental College and Hospital, Patiala, Monika had deposited a sum of Rs.18,500/- as tuition fee, security and other charges in the migrated College. As per the rules and regulations, the appellant College was required to transfer the tuition fee to Government Dental College and Hospital, Patiala but it was not so done by the appellant College. As a result Monika was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.55,800/- from the appellant College. It was not refunded to her. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant College, Monika filed the complaint against the appellant College and respondents No.2 and 3 in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "District First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 4 Forum") for the refund of Rs.55,800/-. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
8. The appellant College filed the written statement. It was admitted that Monika was selected for admission in B.D.S. Course against payment seat and she was admitted in the appellant College. She had deposited the necessary fee and charges. It was admitted that the University had conducted JMT-2001-2002 on 29.3.2002 for which Monika had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fee. It was also admitted that Monika required 'no objection certificate' from the appellant College as she was a student of the appellant College. It was pleaded that the fee was enhanced and it was charged from Monika and she had deposited the same. The receipt was also issued to her by the appellant College.
9. It was not denied that Monika had qualified the JMT-2001-2002. It was admitted that the original certificates were required by her for being produced before counseling. These were given by the appellant College to Monika on her request. It was admitted that Monika had deposited her tuition fee, enhanced fee and she requested to the appellant College to adjust the security amount and she had given a letter to that effect to the Principal of the appellant College. It was admitted that Monika had deposited the fee for which she was issued the receipt.
10. It was further pleaded that Monika was fully aware that she was liable to pay fee before applying for migration. After verifying the same she had deposited the fee. Therefore she is estopped by her own act and conduct from leveling false allegations. It was admitted that Monika had deposited a sum of Rs.49,000/-. It was pleaded that the seat vacated by Monika due to migration was still lying vacant. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant College. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
11. Respondent No.2 was proceeded against ex parte.
First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 5
12. Respondent No.3 also filed written statement. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.3. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
13. Monika produced her affidavit Ex.C1. She also produced documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C28. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of Ashok Bansal, Director as Ex.R1. The appellants also produced documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8. Ashok Bansal also tendered himself for cross-examination and he was cross-examined at length.
14. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents placed on file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/- vide impugned order dated 28.10.2003 and the appellant College was directed to refund the amount of Rs.55,800/- to Monika with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.5.2002 till the date of payment.
15. Hence this appeal.
16. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant College was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 28.10.2003 be set aside.
17. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for Monika was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
18. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
19. The admitted facts are that Monika had passed PMET held in 2000. She was also successful in counseling. She had taken admission to B.D.S. course in the appellant College. She had deposited a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- on 31.8.2000 with the appellant College. These facts have been admitted by the appellant College. Otherwise also Monika has produced receipts dated 31.8.2000 as Ex.C3 to Ex.C6.
20. The University had published an advertisement for the B.D.S. JMT-2001- 2002 on compassionate grounds (Second Year), B.D.S. (Ex.C7). The candidates First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 6 could participate in this test after making the payment of Rs.5,000/-. The test was to be conducted on 29.3.2002 for migration to B.D.S. (Second Year) Course against 80% of the vacant seats available at Government Dental College and Hospital, Patiala and Government Dental College and Hospital, Amritsar. Monika had obtained 'no objection certificate' dated 5.3.2002 from the appellant College (Ex.C8) for her migration to any other recognized dental college in India. Monika was allowed provisional migration in Government Dental College and Hospital, Patiala by the University vide order dated 4.4.2002 (Ex.C9).
21. Monika applied to the appellant College for the return of original documents/certificates to her vide application dated 1.4.2002 (Ex.C10). She required those documents at the time of counseling which was scheduled to be held on 4.4.2002. She herself filed an application on 1.4.2002 (Ex.C11) to the appellant College seeking relieving certificate and permission to deposit the tuition fee along with enhanced fee of the remaining two years after adjusting her security amount of Rs.15,000/-. The security amount of Rs.15,000/- was refunded to her for which she gave the receipt dated 1.4.2002 (Ex.C12).
22. A sum of Rs.7,800/- as enhanced fee at the rate of 15% for four years and Rs.26,000/- as tuition fee for the remaining two years was also got deposited from her by the appellant College on 1.4.2002. Monika seeks the refund of Rs33,800/- deposited by her on 1.4.2002. She also claimed refund of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.13,000/- as tuition fee for BDS 2nd year, Rs.5,250/- as mess charges of one quarter and Rs.3,750/- as hostel charges for one quarter).
23. Learned counsel for Monika placed reliance on the notification of the Government of Punjab dated 20.4.2000 (Ex.C2) in which the second note reads as under:-
"ii. The fee deposited by any of the candidate with the Medical/Dental/Ayurvedic College against Ist First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 7 admission shall have to be refunded to the candidate in case he/she is shifted/adjusted in any other course/college."
24. Similar condition was mentioned in the prospectus PMET-2000 Ex.C17 at note (ii). Hence it was submitted that even as per these terms and conditions Monika was entitled to the refund of the amount after she was adjusted in other College after migration.
25. Reliance was further placed on the letter dated 6.9.2002 sent by the University to the appellant College (Ex.C22) in which the appellant College was directed to refund the permissible fee.
26. She herself had given in writing on 1.4.2002 (Ex.C11) that she was depositing the tuition fee along with enhanced fee for the remaining two years. She had also given the receipt of the security amount of Rs.15,000/- on 1.4.2002 (Ex.C12). As per condition No.8 of the terms and conditions of the appellant College (Ex.R4), Monika had given a declaration that the fee once paid was not refundable. In condition No.9 again she agreed to pay all the dues as notified by the College authority from time to time and on the dates fixed for the purpose and she also gave the declaration that she understood that the fees/dues once paid were not refundable.
27. Moreover the appellant College has taken the plea that the seat vacated by Monika after her migration to Government Dental College and Hospital, Patiala was still lying vacant.
28. Submissions have been considered.
29. So far as the condition laid down in the prospectus is concerned, it is apparent that if Monika had sought migration in the first year then she was entitled to the refund of the amount because the appellant College would have been at liberty to fill the seat vacated by Monika. There is no such condition laid down either in the Government notification or in the prospectus under which First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 8 Monika was entitled to the refund of the amount when she sought migration in the second year.
30. Admittedly Monika had migrated to Government Dental College and Hospital, Patiala in the second year and the appellant College had taken the plea that the seat remained vacant throughout. Therefore the appellant College cannot be made to suffer the loss merely because the respondent had got migration in another college of her choice. It was held by this Commission in the judgment reported as "GUJRANWALA GURU NANAK INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY & ANR. v. GITIKA KAPOOR"
III(2008) CPJ 238 that where the admission is surrendered by a student himself/herself he/she is not entitled to the refund of fee. It was held by this Commission as under:-
"11. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission reported as Ramdeobaba Engineering College v. Sushant Yuvraj Rode & Anr., III(1994) CPJ 160 (NC), in which it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission as under:
"3. This is a case where there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering College. The respondent complainant Shri Rode withdrew from the College to join another institute voluntarily and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering College. Non-refund of admission fee is not a deficiency in service.
Admission fee is a consideration for admission and the service which the Engineering College First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 9 was to render to the student in the matter of his pursuing studies in the college after admission. It is a quid pro quo for such service."
31. In a recent judgment reported as "Registrar, G.G.S. Indraprastha University v. Vaibhav"2009 CTJ 1240 (CP) (NCDRC), the Hon'ble National Commission was pleased to observe that where a candidate succeeds in obtaining admission in another institute the parent institute is well entitled to repudiate the claim on the plea that the last date for withdrawal of admission was already over. In that case the refund was ordered because the respondent College failed to prove if the seat vacated by the candidate remained unfilled. In the present case the appellant College has specifically taken the plea that the seat vacated by Monika remained vacant and, therefore, the appellant College was entitled to recover the fee for the entire course from her.
32. Moreover it was held by this Commission in First Appeal No.290 of 2007 "Gyan Jyoti Institute of Management & Technology vs. Abhishek Munjal"
decided on 23.4.2008 as under:-
"13. Moreover, it appears to us that when a student got admission in the appellant College, he had the option either to deposit the money or not to get the admission by not depositing the fee. But the respondents had exercised the option for getting admission and that is why they had deposited the fees with the appellants on 8.7.2005. In the present case, the appellants accepted the offer of the respondents by accepting the admission fee. Accordingly, they granted the admission to the respondents. The appellants were willing to impart education by granting permission to the respondents to sit in the First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 10 regular classes. If they had refused to permit the respondents to sit in the classes after accepting the admission fee etc., then it was a case where the appellants have committed deficiency in service but in the present case, admittedly the respondents themselves and voluntarily failed to attend the classes in the appellant College. Therefore, the respondents themselves are responsible for not availing the services of the appellants for which they had deposited the fee.
14. After-all it is a case of discipline. It is not a joke that whenever a student likes to seek admission, he or she deposits the fee and gets the admission and then whenever may leave the college and seek the refund of the fee. See the consequences. The management of the College have to keep the seat vacant and wait for the respondents to attend the classes. Not only the said College stands deprived of getting the regular fees for whole of the year or whole of the course but the chances of admission of candidates next in merit are also frustrated.
15. The respondents being students should start their career by getting the lesson of discipline and propriety and not become a litigant in the beginning of his/her career particularly when they have deposited the fees of their own accord and with an intention to get the admission. Simply because they get a better Institution later-on, the propriety demands that they First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 11 should not start litigation against the Institute which had ensured the admission for them. By starting litigation at the basic career stage, the students not only waste their time which they can usefully utilize in the pursuit of their education but they also carry stress on their brain, the useless consumption of which can be utilized by them for growing their Prospectus in their future life. They start litigation for the refund of small amount of Rs.10,000/- or Rs.15,000/- but they also waste a lot of money in starting and pursuing the litigation from the lower court and then to appeal and revisions upto the higher courts. Is the money more important for the students or their education? This is a basic question before the students and they must answer this question intelligently and stop litigating with those Educational Institutions from whom one or the other of them gets education. Not only the students but even the Educational Institutions are put to litigation by which they also spend their time and money. Efforts, therefore, should be by the students to avoid litigation."
33. Therefore the appellant College was justified in charging the fee for the remaining two years also as the seat vacated by Monika remained vacant/unfilled. The appellant College was also entitled to charge the mess charges and hostel fee of 2nd year.
34. However in the present case the appellant College had charged 15% enhanced fee. It was admitted by Ashok Bansal, Director of the appellant College that the sanction for the enhanced fee was not received from the First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 12 Government of Punjab. Therefore the enhancement at the rate of 15% charged for four years to the tune of Rs.7,800/- was illegally recovered by the appellant College.
35. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant College was that the interest at the rate of 12% per annum awarded by the learned District Forum is on the higher side.
36. We find merit in this submission. The rate of interest is reduced from 12% per annum to 7.5% per annum.
37. In view of the discussion held above, both these appeals, namely, First Appeal No.1686 of 2003 and First Appeal No.1687 of 2003 are partly accepted. The refund of the remaining amount except Rs.7,800/- in each case is set aside. The rate of interest is reduced from 12% per annum to 7.5% per annum in each case.
38. The appellant College had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 16.12.2003. Out of this amount, Rs.7,800/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 1.4.2002 till today (to be calculated by the registry) be remitted to Monika by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant College. Remaining amount along with interest, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant College by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft. First Appeal No.1687 of 2007:
39. Similarly in this appeal also, the appellant College had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 16.12.2003. Out of this amount, Rs.7,800/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 1.4.2002 till today (to be calculated by the registry) be remitted to Gurpreet Kaur by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned First Appeal No.1686 of 2003. 13 District Forum and to the appellant College. Remaining amount along with interest, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant College by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft.
40. The arguments were heard in both these cases on 3.11.2009 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
41. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.]) MEMBER November 17, 2009 (PIARE LAL GARG) Bansal MEMBER