Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava,
President and Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member
MS. SWATI ANEJA—Appellant
versus
DEV SAMAJ COLLEGE FOR WOMEN & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 240 of 2001—Decided on 23.10.2001
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate.
Non-refund of admission fee is not a deficiency in service, and admission fee is a consideration for admission and the service to be rendered to the student.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Refund of College Fees - The court held that the appellant's withdrawal from the college voluntarily did not constitute a deficiency in service on the part of the college, and therefore the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant was advised to approach a Civil Court for claiming the refund of the amount deposited with the college.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant had voluntarily withdrawn from the college and requested a refund of the fees deposited, which was declined by the college based on the norms laid down by the University.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's withdrawal did not constitute a deficiency in service on the part of the college, and therefore the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: Whether the appellant could maintain the complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act on the averment that the college was deficient in rendering service to her.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in the case of Shri Ramdeobaba Engineering College, where it was held that non-refund of admission fee is not a deficiency in service, and that admission fee is a consideration for admission and the service to be rendered to the student.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was advised to approach a Civil Court for claiming the refund of the amount deposited with the college.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—This appeal is directed against order dated 15.6.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 313 of 2001 filed by the appellant - Ms. Swati Aneja, daughter of Shri J.K. Aneja, resident of House No. 382, Sector 17, Panchkula against Dev Samaj College for Women, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh and the Principal of the said college. The District Forum-II has dismissed the complaint in limine. The complainant had taken admission to the BCA (1st Year) run by respondent No. 1 - opposite party. At the time of admission, the complainant deposited a total fees of Rs. 18,030/- and was issued a receipt in respect of the said payment on 4.9.2000. The appellant Ms. Swati Aneja later on withdrew from the college voluntarily, due to personal exigencies of her family and she asked for refund of fees deposited with respondent/opposite party No. 1. The refund of the fees was declined by the opposite parties as per the norms laid down by the Punjab University to which the respondent college was affiliated. The case of the appellant/complainant was that she had deposited the entire fees for one year at the time of her admission though as per the norms laid down by the University, the respondent/opposite party No. 1 was entitled to receive tuition fee in two instalments i.e., first at the time of admission and then secondly in the month of October. So far as the remaining payments are concerned, they were to be made in three instalments i.e. firstly at the time of admission, secondly in the month of October and thirdly and lastly in the month of January. A legal notice was also served which is dated 12.3.2001 on the respondents who did not accede to the request of the complainant. Consequently, the said complaint was filed. The District Forum perused the complaint and heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in the case of Shri Ramdeobaba Engineering College v. Sushant Yuvraj Rode & Anr., 1995 (1) CPC 184, and dismissed the complaint in limine on the ground that the complainant had withdrew herself from the respondent college voluntarily and the respondent college was not guilty of rendering any deficient service to her.
2. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order the complainant filed this appeal. Though the District Forum-II had not issued notice of the complaint case yet it was deemed appropriate to issue notice to the respondent and accordingly notices were issued to the respondent who put in appearance through Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate. The record of the complaint case was also summoned. We have heard Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. We have also carefully perused the impugned order.
3. The short point which arises for consideration is whether the appellant could maintain the complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] on the averment that the respondents were deficient in rendering service to her. This question was considered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Shri Ramdeobaba Engineering College (supra), and the Hon’ble National Commission held in Para 3 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 was to render to the student in the matter
