Educational institutions are not entitled to retain tuition fees in the absence of any service rendered, and students are entitled to a refund of tuition fees in case of cancellation of admission for genuine reasons.

Headnote:
REFUND OF TUITION FEES - RULE 1 FRAMED BY THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DATED 27.9.1988 - INTERPRETATION - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - REFUND OF TUITION FEES - DELAY IN APPLICATION - REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED - EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - DUTY TO REFUND TUITION FEES IN CASE OF CANCELLATION OF ADMISSION - UNJUST ENRICHMENT - CONSUMER INTERESTS.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant's son, David Hugo, was admitted to the respondent's engineering college in Pune. He deposited Rs. 8,250/- as tuition fees and Rs. 8,875/- as hostel fees. David also appeared for the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) and secured admission to the Government Engineering College at IIT, Kharagpur. The appellant applied for a refund of the tuition and hostel fees on 25.8.1989, the day after the JEE results were declared. The hostel fees were refunded in full, but only Rs. 2,364/- of the tuition fees were refunded. The appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Pune, seeking a refund of the balance tuition fees. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, holding that the application for refund was not made within 15 days prior to the last date of admission, as required by Rule 1 framed by the Director of Technical Education dated 27.9.1988.
Finding of the Court:

The State Commission allowed the appeal, holding that the delay in applying for a refund was justified in the circumstances of the case. The Commission found that the appellant could not have applied for a refund before the JEE results were declared and that the rule did not take into account the contingency of late declaration of JEE results. The Commission also found that the respondent college had not suffered any monetary loss due to the cancellation of the admission and that it was unjust and unreasonable to refuse to refund the tuition fees.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in applying for a refund of tuition fees was justified in the circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the rule requiring an application for refund to be made 15 days prior to the last date of admission was applicable in the instant case? 3. Whether the respondent college was entitled to retain the tuition fees in the absence of any service rendered?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The delay in applying for a refund was justified in the circumstances of the case, as the appellant could not have applied for a refund before the JEE results were declared and the rule did not take into account the contingency of late declaration of JEE results. 2. The rule requiring an application for refund to be made 15 days prior to the last date of admission was not applicable in the instant case, as the appellant had applied for a refund the day after the JEE results were declared. 3. The respondent college was not entitled to retain the tuition fees in the absence of any service rendered, as the appellant's son had not attended any classes at the college.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the order of the District Forum, Pune, was set aside. The respondent college was directed to refund the balance tuition fees of Rs. 5,816/- to the appellant within 30 days, failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till its realization. The respondent was also directed to pay the cost of Rs. 500/- to the appellant for pursuing the matter before the District Forum, Bombay, District Forum, Pune, and the State Commission.

ORDER

Justice G.G. Loney, President—This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Pune dated 9.7.1990 passed in Complaint No. PDF/220/ 90. The facts in short are that the appellant’s son David Hugo was admitted as a first year student in the College of Engineering of the opposite party at Pune. It appears that the complainant’s son had deposited Rs. 8,250/- towards the tuition and other fees at the time of his admission on 4.7.89. In addition to the aforesaid fees, David had also deposited the hostel fees amounting to Rs. 8,875/-. David also appeared for the Joint Entrance Examination for the year 1989-90. It appears that David had secured the admission in the College of opposite party pending the result of his Joint Entrance Examination. The result of the Joint Entrance Examination was declared on 24.8.89 and being successful he got admission in the Government Engineering College at I.I.T., Kharagpur. The complainant, therefore, approached the opposite party for the refund of college, and hostel fees paid by David. This refund application was made on 25.8.89. The Opposite party refunded the entire hostel fees but as against the deposited tuition fees of Rs. 8,250/-, only an amount of Rs. 2,364/- was refunded. No reasons for the refund of only Rs. 2,364/- has been explained by the opposite party. Feeling aggrieved, therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bombay claiming back the entire balance of the tuition fees. The Bombay District Forum returned the complaint to the complainant stating that it had no jurisdiction. The complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum, Pune. The District Forum, Pune adopted the view that the application for the refund of tuition fee was not made within 15 days prior to the last date of admission to the Engineering College which was 31.8.1989. Reliance was placed on Rule 1 framed by the Director of Technical Education dated 27.9.1988. The Rule (1) provides that if a student wants to cancel his admission in the aided college or non-Government non aided college, the college should return the tuition fee of a student deducting 10% out of the tuition fees or Rs. 100/- whichever is less. The Rule provides the deduction of 10% out of tuition fees only. The Rule does not provide for any other deduction from other deposits which a student pays at the time of his admission. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, therefore, the complainant filed this appeal. According to the appellant, the District Forum is wrong in its view to dismiss the complaint.

2. We have heard Shri A.M. Mascarennas from the Consumer Guidance Society of India for Appellant and Shri M.G. Lohudkar, Administrative Officer for the respondent.

3. According to appellant on the next day of the declaration of the result of the Joint Entrance Examination he applied for refund of fees and therefore, there was no delay to claim the refund of the tuition fees. It is true that the result of the Joint Entrance Examination was declared on 24.8.1989 and application for refund was made on 25.8.1989. Rule (1) dated 27.9.88 states that an application for the refund of fees has to be made 15 days prior to the last date of admission which in the present case was 31.8.1989. On the basis of the facts appearing in this case, we find that there was no delay on the part of appellant to approach for refund of the tuition fees. The appellant could not have approached for the refund before the declaration of Joint Extrance Examination result. Thus the 0possible delay in declaration of Joint Entrance Examination result was not taken into account while framing the aforesaid Rule. It is common knowledge that the admission to I.I.T. Engineering College is regarded as prestigious and students prefer it. While framing the rules, it is obvious that the contingency of late declaration of Joint Entrance Examination results was not taken care of by the Director of Technical Education. It is a well-known fact that in their anxi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW BOMBAYHon’ble Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President;Shri M.G. Gavai, Member; Smt. Ellen Dharkar, MemberABEL PACHECO GRACIAS—AppellantversusPRINCIPAL, BHARATI VIDYAPITH COLLEGE OF ENG.—Opposite PartyAppeal No. 4/91—Decided on 19.4.1991

Educational institutions are not entitled to retain tuition fees in the absence of any service rendered, and students are entitled to a refund of tuition fees in case of cancellation of admission for genuine reasons.