Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President; Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt and
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor (Retd.), Members
MS. RAMA SINHA & ORS.—Appellants
versus
MS. JYOTIKA GUPTA—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 144 of 2003—Decided on 19.8.2003
For the Appellants :Mr. V. Chatrat and Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate.
The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions in the prospectus, and the Consumer Protection Act does not have jurisdiction to declare rules in a prospectus as unconscionable.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Admission to Engineering College - 1986 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The respondent sought admission to an engineering college and deposited a sum of money. She later sought a refund, alleging that the college did not have the necessary approvals and facilities. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the college to refund the amount with interest. The college appealed against this decision. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court held that the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions in the prospectus and that the college did not engage in unfair trade practices. It set aside the District Forum's order and dismissed the complaint. [ISSUES] The main issue was whether the college was obligated to refund the fees. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court emphasized that the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions in the prospectus and that the Consumer Protection Act does not have jurisdiction to declare rules in a prospectus as unconscionable. [FINAL DECISION] The appeal was allowed, and the complaint was dismissed.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—This is an appeal filed against order dated 11.2.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 103 of 2001 filed by the respondent Ms. Jyotika Gupta. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellants/O.Ps. to refund a sum of Rs. 52,245/- to the respondent/complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from 23.8.2000. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded as costs of litigation.
2. The respondent/complainant sought admission to the BE (Electrical) Degree in the academic session 2000-01. She deposited a sum of Rs. 52,245/- with the IITT College of Engineering at Kala Amb of which the appellant No. 1 Ms. Rama Sinha is the Chairperson. It was alleged that the complainant was assured that the aforesaid college had received approval from All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as AICTE) and had also been approved by Himachal Pradesh University for the aforesaid academic session 2000-01. These facts, it was alleged, were also printed in the prospectus of the college. The respondent/complainant during her visit to the aforesaid college alongwith her father was disappointed to see that there was a small building lacking facilities of laboratory for an Engineering College. Atmosphere of the college was also not conducive to the academics. They alleged that they were told by some person that the college was not even recognized by the Himachal Pradesh University and the staff recruited was just an eyewash and it did not have any academic stature. This led the complainant to move an application seeking refund of amount deposited by her and no action was taken on her application. Thereafter, she served a legal notice on 16.9.2000. The complainant received a letter from the appellants which was dated 9.12.2000 stating that the fees deposited by her was not refundable.
3. Resultantly, the complaint was filed. The complainant claimed the refund of the fees deposited with interest @ 18% per annum, damages for mental anguish and agony to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs.
4. The appellants/O.Ps. contested the complaint case and took preliminary objections of the complainant not being a consumer within the definition of the term under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act) and the appellants/O.Ps. were not provider of service hired and availed of by the complainant. The territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum was also challenged. It was alleged that the complainant had voluntarily left the Engineering College. It was claimed that the aforesaid college was duly approved by the AICTE, New Delhi and about 600 students were studying in B. Tech Course in the college which was also duly affiliated to the Himachal Pradesh University. The allegations regarding the Engineering College lacking a suitable building, laboratory and teaching staff were also controverted.
5. The complainant as well as the O.Ps. led evidence in the shape of affidavits and the complainant filed admission note, receipt vide which the amount was deposited as annual fees and annual charges, copy of application seeking refund of the fees consequent upon surrendering of her seat, copy of legal notice, copy of letter received from the respondent. Annexures A1 to A5 were clippings from newspapers making adverse type of allegations against IITT College, Kala Amb. The appellants filed extracts from the prospectus (Annexure R-1) showing that the deposit once made by the candidate would not be refundable.
6. On behalf of the O.Ps., Shri P.D. Gupta filed his affidavit and placed on record copy of Notification No. 1-162/97-HPU (Acad) dated 7.8.1997 of Himachal Pradesh University granting provisional affiliation to the college for the year 1997-98, copy of letter of AICTE, New Delhi directing the Sectional Officer (North Western Office) of AICTE, North Wes
