The judgment establishes that under the Consumer Protection Act, no person can retain consideration for a service not provided, and compensation must be awarded for any fault or deficiency in service.

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—The facts of this case demonstrate a highly unfair, unscrupulous and uncouth practice being adopted by the educational institutions, including the University whereby they forfeit huge sums under the garb of the admission fees without providing any service of tuition or any other service. In the past we have come very heavily on such institutions and today again we are dealing with a University set up by the Delhi Government known as Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University.

2. At the outset we express our anguish that the appellant-University has filed which is highly misconceived and misdirected appeal. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal need to be stated, in brief.

3. Vide impugned order dated 15.6.2005 passed by the District Forum the appellant has been directed to refund Rs. 58,500 with 9% interest and pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved it has preferred this appeal. Relevant facts lie in a narrow compass and are as under:

Respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 58,500 as tuition fee for admission in Maharaja Agarsen institute of Technology in the paid category. When she came to know that she was given admission on All India basis from CBSE Board, Delhi at Chandigarh on 23.8.2002, she applied for withdrawal of admission and refund of the fee, security and other charges on 29.8.2002. Despite repeated requests only a sum of Rs. 2,500 was refunded 25.9.2002. But the reason for non-refund of the remaining amount given by the appellant is that complainant was entitled for a refund of security deposit of Rs. 5,000 and examination fee of Rs. 2,500 only and the entire tuition fee amounting to Rs. 58,500 was forfeited as per provisions of Clause 45(b) of the Information Bulletin, which provides as under:

“Withdrawal of Admission and Refund of Fee—

(a) I a student applies for a withdrawal of admission on or before 15th July, 2002 upto 5.00 P.M., the fee after deduction of 20 percent amount subject to a minimum of Rs. 5000 will be refundable. The request for withdrawal of admission is to be submitted in the Room No. 107 of the Admission Branch and proper receipt will be issued.

(b) No refund of fee, except deposit and examination fee amounting to Rs. 7,500 will be made on withdrawal, cancellation of admission after 15th July, 2002 upto 2nd September, 2002. Thereafter only security deposit amounting to Rs. 5,000 will be refundable and the same will be refunded by the concerned institutions.

(c) If any student admitted during second counselling or thereafter against the vacancies and subsequently applies for withdrawal, cancellation of his/her admission, no fee except the security deposit and examination fee amounting to Rs. 7,500 will be refundable and that too upto 2nd September, 2002. Thereafter only security deposit amounting to Rs. 5,000 will be refundable and the same will be refunded by the concerned institutions.

4. On the face of it such a clause is against the public policy and against the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as no person can retain the consideration for a service which it has not provided at all. Had the respondent joined the course and taken some tuition for some period, Clause 4.5(b) would have been invoked and that too in reasonable and rational manner. By forfeiting an amount of Rs. 58,500 without providing the service of tuition as the respondent withdrew from the admission without joining the class.

5. If this is the way to enrich oneself less said the better. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act have so much wide ramifications against a person who provide service against consideration. If he commits any fault or shortcoming or deficiency is bound to compensate the consumer as to the loss or injury suffered by him. Here is a case where no tuition was provided nor even the respondent attended any class but still the appellant refused refund of the tuition fees paid by the respondent at the time of applying fo