Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President;
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor & Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
CHITKARA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY & ANR.—Appellants
versus
AJAY PAL SINGH—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 330 of 2004—Decided on 30.11.2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sukant Prabhakar, Advocate.
The court established that specific assurances made by the O.P. to the complainant, along with their actions, can create a duty to fulfill the assurances, even if contrary to the terms and conditions of an admission brochure.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Refund of Fee - CET-2002 - Para 9(iv) of Admission Brochure - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was allotted a seat in Mechanical Engineering at Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology and deposited the fee. Later, he was allotted a seat in Electronic and Communication Engineering and sought a refund. The O.P. Institute only refunded a portion of the fee, leading to the complaint seeking reliefs including refund of the balance amount, interest, and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the O.P. Institute had assured the complainant of a refund if he obtained admission in another college or university, and the O.P. failed to deny this. The court held that the O.Ps. were duty-bound to refund 90% of the fee deposited by the complainant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the O.P. Institute was obligated to refund 90% of the fee deposited by the complainant after he obtained admission in another college or university.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the specific averment made on oath by the complainant regarding the assurance of a refund, the act of refunding a portion of the fee by the O.Ps., and held that the O.Ps. were duty-bound to refund 90% of the fee deposited by the complainant.
Final Decision: The impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit. The parties were left to bear their own costs of litigation.
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 22.7.2003 in Complaint Case No. 86 of 2004, Sh. Ajay Pal Singh v. Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology and Another.
2. Salient aspects of the complaint are that the complainant appeared in Common Entrance Test (CET)-2002 conducted by Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar and cleared this test with 3021 rank in the merit list. On 26.7.2002 the complainant, on first counselling was allotted a seat in Mechanical Engineering (paid) in Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology i.e., O.P. No. 1 Institute. The complainant immediately deposited Rs. 10,000/- with Punjab Technical University out of which Rs. 7,500/- were to be transferred to the O.P. No. 1 Institute as fee of the 1st Semester. It is alleged that at the time of depositing the fee the complainant was assured that in case he gets admission in any other College/University 90% of the fee deposited by him will be refunded or transferred to the College/University in which he gets admission, subject to the Institute recovering the amount from PTU. The complainant deposited the balance fee of Rs. 61,943/-. Subsequently, on 21.8.2002, the complainant was allotted a seat in Electronic and Communication Engineering as a result of upgradation. In the meantime, the complainant was successful in getting admission in University Institute of Engineering and Technology (UIET) of Punjab University, Chandigarh. Consequently, the complainant informed the O.P. Institute about his surrendering of his seat by letter dated 27.8.2002 before second counselling. In another letter addressed to Vice-Chancellor, PTU, he categorically demanded refund of fee deposited by him. Another letter dated 1.11.2002 was written by the complainant to the Principal of O.P. Institute seeking immediate refund of the fee but only Rs. 11,000/- were refunded out of Rs. 69,443/- deposited. When efforts of the complainant failed to get refund of the balance amount, he served legal notice to the Principal of O.P. Institute dated 13.8.2003 but there was no response. A legal notice dated 17.9.2003 was also served to Director of the O.P. Institute but of no avail. Hence, the complaint seeking following reliefs:
“(i) The opposite party No. 1 be directed to refund the balance amount of fee i.e., Rs. 58,443/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit of the fee and till its realisation.
(ii) The opposite party No. 2 be directed to remit the amount of Rs. 7,500/- to opposite party No. 1 if the same has not been done till date.
(iii) Compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
(iv) Litigation expenses Rs. 10,000/-.”
3. The O.Ps. were given repeated adjournments and time to file Vakalatnama and written statements but even after four months and five days, only Vakalatnama for O.P. No. 2 was filed and Vakalatnama for O.P. No. 1 as well as written statements of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were not filed. The O.Ps. were given no further adjournment keeping in view the mandate of the Hon’ble National Commission that the consumer complaint be disposed of within three months of the service of O.Ps. The case was thus decided ex parte against the O.Ps.
4. Learned District Forum-II has in the impugned order noted the provisions of para 9 of the admission brochure issued by PTU/O.P. No. 2 of which Clause (iv) speaks of shifting of already admitted students to another Institution/Branch within the University as under:
“9. Second counselling to fill the vacant seats—
Second counselling to fill the vacant seats will be held as per the schedule given in this brochure. Candidates fulfilling any of the following conditions will be eligible for appearing in second counselling on the basis of CET-2002 merit—
(i) A candidate who did not avail of the first counselling.
(ii) A candidate who could not get a
