IMPORTANT POINT
Petitioner failed to convince as to why fees including transport charges by respondent cannot be refunded,as daughter did not pursue her studies in college,revision dismissed.

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision Petition No. 894 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner/ opposite party against the order dated 5.12.2012, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (short, “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.1329 of 2012.

2. Brief facts of the case as per respondent/complainant are that Ms.Deepika, daughter of the respondent after clearing AIEEE test took provisional admission in the college of the petitioner/opposite party with the assurance to the respondent that the admission could be withdrawn at any time and the fees paid by him would be refundable in case the student was not interested to continue. Since there was no security, proper infrastructure or basic amenities in the college and transport facility was also poor, the respondent withdrew his daughter from the college of the petitioner. The respondent had paid Rs.20,000 in cash towards admission charges and a sum of Rs.59,000 was paid by cheque besides a sum of Rs.18,000 on account of transport charges. On request made by the respondent, a sum of Rs.19,000 had been refunded to him by the Haryana State Counseling Society, Panchkula and a sum of Rs.18,000/- charged towards transport charges was not refunded to him by the petitioner. A legal notice was also issued by the respondent on 19.10.2009 for refund of the amount paid by him, to the petitioner/opposite party.

3. Petitioner/opposite party in their reply before the District Forum had admitted para 1 and 2 of the complaint being matter of record whereas all the allegations levelled in para 3 to 9 were denied. The admission given to the daughter of the complainant was not a provisional one and no assurance for refund of the fees was given in case of non- pursuing the college of the opposite party. The allegations regarding security, basic amenities and transport were also denied. The service of legal notice upon him was also denied by the opposite party. The opposite party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

4. District Forum vide order dated 27.3.2012 while allowing the complaint gave a following order:

“As no services of the college of the opposite party has been availed by the daughter of the complainant, there is a high handedness on part of the opposite party in not refunding the amount paid to him, who is utilizing the money since 2009 for which he is not entitled. Since a provisional admission was given by the opposite party, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him. Copy of provisional admission slip dated 27.6.2009 has been placed on file.

To meet the end of justice, the opposite party is directed to pay 90% amount of the amount deposited by the complainant (Rs.59,000 + Rs.18,000) to the complainant alongwith Rs.5,000 as compensation and Rs.1,500 as litigation charges within 30 days of the receipt of this order. In case of non-compliance of the order the opposite party is directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.59,000 + Rs.18,000 from the date of complaint i.e. 11.11.2009 till the date of realization of the amount. Decided accordingly.”

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner/opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission in its impugned order dated 5.12.2012 dismissed the appeal in limini both on the ground of limitation as well as on merit. While, dismissing the appeal, the State Commission held that:

“Having taken into consideration, the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay, we feel that the appellants have failed to establish “Sufficient Cause” to condone the delay. We are, therefore, left with no other alternative but to dismiss the application of condonation of delay, hence, the application for condonation condonation of delay is rejected.

Even on merits, it is an admitted case of the parties that Deepika daughter of the complainant was provided provisional admission slip by the opposite parties on 27