Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President;
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor & Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
JASLEEN KAUR—Appellant
versus
A.K. VIDHYA MANDIR PVT. LTD.—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 98 of 2005—Decided on 6.10.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. B.P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora - Whether has any jurisdiction to declare a rule in the prospectus of an educational institute as unconscionable or illegal as to non-refund of fees ? (No)(Para11)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal against order of D.F. declining to refund fees by an Institute due to Rule 7 of the Rules and Regulations of the Prospectus stating that fees once paid would not be refunded in any circumstances - Complainant left the Institute voluntarily without any reasonable cause - D.F. rightly declined to refund the fee - Appeal dismissed - Case Law referred.
Held: Counsel for the appellant also contended that the respondent cannot
indulge in unjust enrichment at the cost of the appellant. In our opinion, it is not question of unjust enrichment at the
cost of appellant but it is a question of principle. The appellant had attended the classes for three days and then left the course midway voluntarily without any apparent cause. In the complaint, it is stated that the staff was unqualified but it was argued before the State Commission that the appellant being an average student could not follow the lectures and as such left the institute. Both things are contradictory. The only conclusion is that she had left the institute voluntarily, without any reasonable cause and as such is not entitled to the refund of fee of institute as well as hostel.(Para 18)
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.(Para 19)
Result : Appeal dismissed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to declare a Rule in prospectus of educational institution unconscionable or illegal, where Prospectus provides non-refund of fees in any case, it cannot be refunded where candidate left the institute voluntarily, without any reasonable cause.
Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President—This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 24.3.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby her complaint for refund of fee amount was not allowed and was filed and she was directed to seek remedy before the Civil Court, as admissible under law.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant (complainant) is resident of Faridkot. She approached the respondent for getting coaching for PMT classes for the examination to be held in 2003. She had deposited Rs. 12,000 in cash on 17.1.2003 as tuition fee and Rs. 3,700 as hostel fee while taking admission in the said institute. It was next averred that the respondent had assured her that the institute had got competent faculty members, whereas on joining the institute, she found that faculty members were unqualified and were recruited on daily basis. She attended the classes for a few days and found that the faculty members were not up to the mark. She approached the respondent for providing her with a list of faculty members along with their qualification, but it failed to supply the same and even refused to refund the fee deposited by her. She again contacted the respondent on 2.1.2005 for getting refund but all in vain and even legal notice was also served upon it.
3. With these allegations, the complaint for refund of Rs. 15,700 was filed.
4. Summons were sent to the respondent through courier agency but it refused to accept service and the service was considered sufficient and since, it did not appear, so, it was proceeded against ex parte on 21.2.2005.
5. The appellant produced on file her affidavit besides documents by way of evidence.
6. After hearing Counsel for the appellant, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh, filed the complaint by stating that since it did not have jurisdiction to declare any rules in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal, so, it did not have jurisdiction to order refund of the amount. It further directed the appellant to approach the Civil Court.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard Mr. B.P.S. Dhaliwal, Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vineet Sharma, Counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the file.
9. The appellant has stated in her affidavit that she had approached the respondent for getting coaching for PMT classes for the examination to be held in 2003. She next stated that she was misled by the assurance of the respondent that it had competent staff but after attending classes for a few days, she found that faculty members were not up to the mark and when she asked the respondent to provide her a list of faculty members and their qualification, it refused to supply the same and on her request, it also refused to refund the fee, etc. She next stated that she had deposited Rs. 12,000 as tuition fee and Rs. 3,700 as hostel expenses with the respondent on 17.1.2003 and started attending the classes for getting coaching for the PMT examination. Therefore, according to the version of the appellant, as stated in the affidavit, she had attended the classes for 2-3 days.
10. Counsel for the respondent contended that the fee once deposited was not refundable under any circumstances. For this contention, he has brought to our notice condition regarding mode of payment as mentioned in the information brochure of A.K. Vidyamandir. The said mode of payment reads as under:
“Students are advised to pay fee in cash/Bank Draft/Money Order or local cheques in favour of ‘A.K. Vidyamandir’ payable at Chandigarh. Fee mentioned above is payable by the students in advance and is non-refundable and non-transferable under any circumstances, if once the admission is granted. Late fee of Rs. 50 per day will be charged if dues are not submitted by the due date.”
11. Rule 7 of the Rules and Regulations of the brochure also states that fee once paid wou
