Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President — In this complaint a claim is made for the refund of fees paid in the Medical College, consequent on the withdrawal of admission. The complainant’s son Efterkhar Alam was admitted in Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Medical College (hereinafter referred as ‘College’) in Government Quota seat of Maharashtra State. A letter from Director, Medical Education and Research, Bombay dated 12.9.90 Ex. A is the intimation to the complainant’s son about his admission. On 8.10.90, the complainant’s son paid Rs. 39,500/-. Ex. B dated 8.10.90 is the receipt of having paid Rs. 39,500/- towards the fee to the college. The complainant’s son had also appeared for Services Selection Board/Competition of Indian Navy in July/August, 1990 and was successful in getting the admission. Ex. C is the intimation from the Naval Head Quarters, addressed to complainant’s son for his admission at Naval Academy, Goa. The complainant’s father, therefore, by letter dated 15.12.90 at Ex. D requested in writing to the Director of Medical Education and Research, Government of Maharashtra for permission to withdraw the name of his son from the College and to recommend the return of his fees and original certificates. In turn, the Director of Medical Education vide his letter dated 16.1.91 at Ex. E requested the Principal the opposite party to cancel the admission and to consider the request for refund of fees. It is also informed in the said letter that the seat vacated by the Eftekhar Alam has been filled in by giving admission to Shri S.N. Mantri. The complainant pursued the opposite party to refund the fees but having failed in his attempts to get the refund of fees of his son Eftekhar from the opposite party, this complaint came to be filed claiming the refund of tuition fees plus Rs. 60,000/- as compensation.

2. We have heard Shri Pisal of the Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, Pune for the complainant and Shri Godbole for the opposite party. A notice issued by this Commission dated 4.2.92 u/Sec. 13 of the C.P. Act was received by the opposite party. Postal acknowledgment of the same is on record. It was also informed in the said notice that the complaint is listed for hearing on 8.4.1992. However, the complaint was adjourned to 10.6.92. Till 10.6.92 when the complaint was finally heard, the opposite party did not file its written version denying the allegations made by the complainant-in this complaint. At the time of hearing, the learned Advocate for the complainant Shri Godbole, Advocate filed a note under his signature giving the details of calculation of interest. In that note, the only point urged by the learned Advocate was that this Commission had no jurisdiction on account of the claim of complainant below, Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is important to note that Shri Godbole has been engaged as an Advocate by the opposite party who has filed his Vakalatnama which is on record, but the opposite party has not filed any written version under the signature of any office bearer nor has filed any affidavit controverting the allegations made by the complainant.

3. In the case of Abel Pacheeo Gracias v. Principal, Bharati Vidyapith College of Engineering I (1992) CPJ 105 it is held that ‘a student is essentially a consumer of services in educational institution when there is no service availed there is no right with the college to appropriate tuition fees of a student’. This Commission has taken the above view. This Commission has also taken the view that it amounts to deficiency in service if tuition fees are collected without imparting education. In our view, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is applicable to the facts of this case. In our view, therefore, this complaint is maintainable within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant has claimed total Rs. 1,05,000/- as the amount towards refund of fees and compensation and, therefore, also this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint. The objection rais