Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava,
President & Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member
GOSWAMI GANESH DUTT SANATAN DHARMA
(GGDSD) COLLEGE SOCIETY & ANR.—Appellants
versus
ASEEM—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 124 of 2004—Decided on 25.5.2004
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. Sudhir Theari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate.
The amount paid for admission was not refundable as it fell under the terms and conditions of the College Prospectus.
Headnote:
Refund - Admission Fee - Punjab University Calendar, Vol. III of 1996, Pg. 23 - The court discussed the breakdown of the fee paid by the complainant and concluded that the amount was charged as a lumpsum payment for admission, not as a security. The court held that the amount was not refundable as it fell under the terms and conditions of the College Prospectus.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant paid a fee for a PGDCA course at a college but later opted out. He sought a refund, which was denied by the college.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amount paid was not refundable as it was charged as a lumpsum payment for admission, not as a security.
Issues: Refund of fee for PGDCA course
Ratio Decidendi: The amount paid by the complainant was charged as a lumpsum payment for admission, not as a security, and therefore was not refundable.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the complaint was dismissed for lacking in merit.
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member—This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [hereinafter for short, referred to as District Forum-II], dated 3.2.2004 in Complaint Case No. 1102 of 2004: Asseem v. Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharma (GGDSD) College Society and Another.
2. Essentials of the complaint are that the complainant did his B.Sc. (CA) from Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatam Dharma College Society [hereinafter for short, referred to as College] in the year 2002. The College Management started Postgraduate Diploma in Computer Application [PGDCA, for short] Court from session 2002-2003 for enabling students to get admission in this course, in case of their failure to get admission in the Master’s course. The duration of the PGDCA course was to be one year and the total seats were 30. The Management of the college issued a prospectus in the year 2002-2003 which inter alia mentions that the dates of admission for the PGDCA course for normal admission were from 1.7.2002 to 13.7.2002 and in case of late admission it would be from 15.7.2002 to 27.7.2002 with the permission of the Principal and 29.7.2002 to 31.8.2002 with the permission of the Vice-Chancellor, Punjab University. The complainant also avers that this admission schedule started before the declaration of results of Entrance Test conducted by other educational institutions. The complainant had appeared for Entrance test for M.C.A. conducted by Punjabi University, Patiala for which Counselling date was fixed as 29.7.2002. He also approached the Management of the College for getting admission in PGDCA course and was told that there would be no vacant seat after 22.7.2002. Thus, under these circumstances he took admission in the PGDCA course and paid Rs. 16,650/- as the fee prescribed, on 22.7.2002. On 29.7.2002 the complainant appeared for M.C.A. at Punjabi University, Patiala and he was also selected for this course and thereafter on 5.8.2002 he deposited the requisite fee with the Punjabi University, Patiala for M.C.A. On 6.8.2002 the complainant approached the authorities of the College and found that the process of admission to PGDCA course was still on and this process even continued up to 6.9.2002. Had this fact of admissions carrying on till September, 2002 been known to the complainant he would not have deposited the fee for PGDCA course as early as 22.7.2002. The complainant opted out of the PGDCA course and the seat vacated by him was given by the College to another candidate. The complainant requested for refund of Rs. 16,650/- paid as the fee but the College Authorities refused to oblige. When the College Authorities did not agree to refund the fee, legal notice dated 4.10.2002 was served on the College Authorities and the Principal but there was no response to this notice. In the complaint the complainant prayed for following reliefs:
(a) Payment of fee amount of Rs. 16,650/- along with amount of damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-.
(b) Payment of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-.
(c) Payment of a total of Rs. 46,650/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 22.7.2002 till payment.
3. The O.P. contested the case and stated that the complainant is not a consumer and has not come to the District Forum with clean hands. It was denied that the complainant was told that no seats would remain vacant in the PGDCA course on 22.7.2002. It is also submitted that the complainant voluntarily got admitted to the diploma course on 22.7.2002 by paying fees and dues amounting to Rs. 16,650/-. It is the case of the O.P. that the prospectus of the College makes it clear that the dues once paid could not be refunded and the complainant had signed a declaration in the admission from that he had understood all the terms and conditions of the prospectus and would be bound by them and this declaration was also counter-signed by his father. It is, therefore, the version of the O.Ps. that the complainant is estopped fro
