Back
2008(2) CPR 192
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
S.N. Aggarwal, President and Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor, Member
Gujranwala Guru Nanak Institute of Management Technology and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Gitika Kapoor —Respondent
First Appeal No. 1384 of 2006
Decided on 13.2.2007
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Shri Deepak Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sh. Dharam Pal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
When a student voluntarily leaves an educational institution, there is no deficiency in service on the part of that educational institution so as to entitle that student for refund of fees already paid for the period he did not receive instruction because of his leaving the institution on his own volition.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Deficiency in service in non-refund of fee and charges—Respondent-complainant got admission for MBA in appellant institute and deposited initial amount of Rs. 20,700—She could not attend the course for certain reasons and asked for refund of amount—District Forum allowed complaint and directed appellant for refund of amount—Appeal—Assertion of complainant that appellant was informed about complainant’s inability to attend classes and that appellant filled up the seat vacated by respondent by candidate next in merit remained unproved—Appellant College specifically denied to have filled the seat by any other candidate—No deficiency in service in non-refund of fee—Impugned order was liable to be set aside. (Paras 9 to 13)
Result: Appeal allowed.
S.N. Aggarwal, President—Gitika Kapoor respondent was granted admission in the appellant College for MBA First Year in August 2005. She deposited a sum of Rs.10,000 on 3.8.2005 and another amount of Rs. 20,700 on 10.8.2005. Due to family circumstances and medical reasons she could not attend the classes for which she gave information to the appellant College and surrendered the seat. She also filed an application for refund of this amount. The seat vacated by the respondent was filled by the appellant College by calling the candidate next in the merit below the respondent. The appellant College, however, did not refund the amount deposited by the respondent in spite of repeated requests. Hence she filed a complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar(in short “District Forum”).
2. The appellants filed the written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was admitted that the respondent had sought admission in the appellant College in August 2005 in MBA First Year and that she had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000 on 3.8.2005 and Rs. 20,700 on 10.8.2005. However, it was denied if she had given any intimation to the appellant College about her inability to attend the classes or if the seat vacated by the respondent was filled by the appellant College. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the refund of the amount as not only the appellant College has suffered but even the candidate next in the merit has also suffered for the seat. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
3. The respondent tendered her own affidavit Ex.CW1-A and the documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C10. The appellant College tendered affidavit Ex. RW1 and documents Ex.R1 and Ex. R2.
4. On the basis of this evidence, learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 12.9.2006 accepted the complaint with costs of Rs. 2,000 and directed the appellant College to refund the amount deposited by the respondent.
5. Hence the appeal.
6. The record has been perused and the submissions have been considered.
7. The factual position has not been denied that the respondent had sought admission in the appellant College and had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 3.8.2005 and Rs. 20,700 on 10.8.2005 as the admission fee.
8. It may be that the respondent did not attend any class but the question is when the respondent informed the appellant College that she would not be attending the College and she was surrendering the seat to the appellant College for being filled by a candidate next in the merit below the respondent. The first letter placed on the file is dated 10.11.2005(Ex C2) by which the father of the respondent informed the appellant College about the inability of his daughter Gitika Kapoor to attend the classes. The next letter is dated 5.12.2005(Ex. C3) and thereafter the letters dated 16.12.2005(Ex. C4), 27.1.2006(Ex.C5) and 17.3.2006(Ex. C6).
9. In all these letters the father of the respondent had been making the earnest request to the appellant College for the refund of the amount deposited on behalf of the respondent with the appellant College. Although in the letter dated 10.11.2005(Ex.C2) it was stated by the father of the respondent that he had requested the Director of the appellant College personally many times on the subject and had also sent written request about two months ago but no such letter has been proved nor any date has been specified on which he orally requested the appellant College about the surrendering of seat by his daughter Gitika Kapoor respondent. Therefore, the assertion made in the letter dated 10.11.2005(Ex. C2) about the information given by the father of the respondent earlier to that to the Director of the appellant College is unbelievable and is a fictitious story. The respondent and her father have not alleged in any of these letters if the seat was filled by the appellant College out of any candidate lower in merit than the respondent after the sai
