Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President;
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt & Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Members
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
AND TECHNOLOGY & ORS.—Appellants
versus
SUMER SINGH—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 528 of 2003—Decided on 19.12.2003
For the Appellants :Mr. Vikas Chatrath and Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate.
The terms and conditions stated in the brochure and prospectus are binding on both the candidate and the institute, and the institute cannot amend or alter these at any subsequent stage.
Headnote:
Refund - Admission Dispute - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including definitions of 'complainant', 'deficiency in service', and 'unfair trade practice'. The court emphasized the binding nature of terms and conditions stated in the brochure and prospectus, highlighting the principle that the institute and the candidate are bound by these terms. The judgment also referenced a case law to support the principle that the institute cannot amend or alter the terms and conditions at any subsequent stage. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought a refund of the fees deposited for admission to a degree course after being declined the refund by the institute. The institute contested the complaint, stating that the fees were not refundable under any circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the terms and conditions stated in the brochure were binding on the complainant and the institute. It emphasized that the institute cannot amend or alter the terms and conditions at any subsequent stage.
Issues: Dispute over refund of admission fees, interpretation of terms and conditions stated in the brochure and prospectus.
Ratio Decidendi: The terms and conditions stated in the brochure and prospectus are binding on both the candidate and the institute, and the institute cannot amend or alter these at any subsequent stage.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the District Forum was set aside. The complaint was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President——This is an appeal filed against order dated 5.8.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 200 of 2001, Sumer Singh v. International Institute of Information Technology and 2 Others.
2. The complainant sought an admission to the 2nd Year Class of the Degree Course of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering at the appellants-International Institute of Information Technology [for short hereinafter referred to as the institute] and deposited fees of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The case of the complainant is that while taking admission, he was told by the institute that in case he succeeded in seeking admission in any other engineering college, the appellant-institute would refund the fees of Rs. 50,000/- to him. It was on this understanding with the OPs, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 10.8.2000 vide receipt Annexure C-1. It was alleged that the complainant was successful in getting admission in the B.E. Degree course in Guru Nanak Engineeing College, Ludhiana and he approached personally and telephonically to the appellants seeking the refund of the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was declined vide letter dated 9.11.2000 and this amounted to deficiency in service.
3. The complainant sought refund of the principal amount of Rs. 50,000/-, interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 10.8.2000 till its refund and litigation expenses of Rs. 10.000/-.
4. The complaint was contested by the OPs who took a plea that IIIT College of Engineering was situated in Village Kala Amb, District Sirmour in the State of Himachal Pradesh and the O.P. No.1-Institute at Manimajra, Chandigarh had got no connection with the admission to that College and, as such, the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum was disputed. It was, however, not disputed that the fees of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by the complainant but it was not admitted that any assurance was given for the refund of the amount to the complainant, in case he succeeded in getting admission to some other engineering college in Punjab. Reference was made to the instructions issued by the IIIT Kala Amb that the tuition fees and charges once deposited would not be refunded under any circumstances or for any reason whatsoever.
5. Parties led evidence before the District Forum. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint who directed the O.Ps. to refund of Rs. 50.000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from 9.11.2000 till payment because it was the date of the letter (Exhibit Annexure C-3) vide which the IIIT College of Engineering refused to refund the deposited amount to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded as costs of proceedings.
6. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, this appeal has been filed by the O.Ps. The complaint was contested by the respondent/complainant who was represented by Mr. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate appeared and argued the appeal on behalf of the appellants.
7. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate submitted that tuition fees and charges once deposited were not liable to be refunded under any circumstances or for any reason whatsoever. The security deposited was, however, refundable after adjustment of tuition fee not paid for any reason whatsoever. The averment regarding the refund of the fee deposited in case the repondent/complainant sought admission in any engineering college in Punjab is only frivolous and there is no document containing written assurance has been placed on record. The District Forum laid great stress on the point that the Receipt Annexure C-1 did not show as to for what purpose a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by the complainant. The learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the Receipt Voucher which reads as under :
“RECEIPT VOUCHER”
Receipt No. 128.
Date : 10.8.2000
Received with thanks a sum of Rs. 50,000/
