Back
2012(2) CPR 539 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
Ganpati College of Engineering —Petitioner
versus
Vijeta —Respondent
Revision Petition Nos. 347 to 350 of 2012
Decided on 25.5.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Concurrent view taken by District Forum and State Commission which is based on finding of fact cannot be disturbed.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act,1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Education—Non-refund of admission fee—Complainants sought refund on the ground that they had practically not attended any of classes—While allowing complaint District Forum considered fact that several seats in concerned disciplines were unfilled—Due to such large vacancies institution had no waiting list of admission seekers and question of filling up vacancy caused by exit of individual complainant did not arise—Concurrent view taken by District Forum and State Commission is based on a finding of fact which cannot be disturbed in present proceedings—Revision Petitions dismissed. (Paras 7 to 10)
Vinay Kumar, Member—The Ganpati College of Engineering District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana has filed four different revision petitions against the concurrent orders of the District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana. The Complainants were four students, who had taken admission in B. Tech. courses of this College, paid the requisite fees and subsequently sought refund thereof.
2. Two of the Complainants namely, Vijeta, daughter of Mahima Singh (RP 347 of 2012) and Shivani daughter of Mahima Singh (RP 350 of 2012) had impleaded the Director, Technical Education Haryana also as OP-2. The other two Complainants, Mangat Ram, (for his minor daughter) S/o Sita Ram (RP 348 of 2012) and Harminder Kaur, daughter of Gurucharan Singh (RP 349 of 2012) had filed the complaint against the Collage and its management only. However, considering the similarity of facts and issues for decision involved in the orders of the fora below, the four revision petitions are taken up for disposal together, through this common order.
3. The case of the Complainants in all the four cases was that they had taken admission in B. Tech. course during the month of August, 2008. They had paid fees ranging between Rs. 31,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-, depending upon the course. Allegedly, the Complainants were also assured that they could seek refund in the event of not continuing with the course. The Complainants sought refund on the ground that they had practically not attended any of the classes.
4. Per contra, the case of the OP/revision petitioner was that the Complainants had admittedly surrendered the seats voluntarily and without any prior intimation or permission. The seats allotted to the Complainants had remained unfilled throughout the session, resulting in financial loss to the College caused by non-payment of the balance of fees. It was also pleaded that the Complainants had signed an undertaking that “I understand that I will have to deposit fees for the remaining period for the course in case I leave the institute midstream and shall not claim refund of fees deposited by me.”
5. The complaints were allowed by the District Forum directing the OP/revision petitioner to refund ( together with 9% interest) the deposited amounts, deducting only Rs 1000 as processing charge. Appeals against the orders of refund, were dismissed by the State Commission in four separate but nearly identical ordeRs.
6. The case of the revision petitioner/Ganpati College of Engineering before this Commission is primarily based on the undertaking of not seeking refund, given by the Complainants at the time of admission. The revision petition also raises another issue that under the instructions of the Director, Technical Education, Haryana and the Haryana State Counseling Society during the relevant sessions, a student could claim refund of fee only if he/she had left the seat before the expiry of the last date of admission and also if the seat was filled up by some other candidate.
7. From perusal of the order of the fora below it is seen that this matter has been very directly address therein. The provision referred to by the revision petitioner is contained in condition No. 5 (A) (2) in the admission brochure issued by the Haryana State Counseling Society (HSCS) and reads as follows:-
“5(A) (2) If any student applies for refund after start of session i.e. after 18.8.2008 and before last date of admission at institute level, the refund would be on the condition mentioned below:
1. In case seat is filled up by the institution, HSCS will refund the entire token admission fee to the student/candidate after a deduction of the processing fee of Rs. 1000/-.
II In case seat is not filled up, the HSCS will transfer the amount to the institute after making deduction of processing fee of Rs. 1000/- and the candidate will not be refunded any amount out of token admission fee.”
8. The District Forum considered the fact that several seats in
