Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Registrar, University of
Agriciltural Science —Petitioner
versus
Tummala Kavya DRI —Respondent
Revision Petition No.3205 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 04/08/2017 in Appeal No. 1603/2017 of the State Commission Telangana)
Decided on 18.5.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Advocate with Ms. Supreeta Patil, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate (suo motto appeared)
IMPORTANT POINT
Special limitation periods have been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Education—Fee not refunded after withdrawal from University—District Forum allowed complaint and directed opposite party/petitioner to return amount of Rs.2,92,044/- along with cost of Rs.5,000/-—Appeal dismissed by State Commission on ground of delay—No supporting documents were filed by petitioner along with application for condonation of delay and therefore, delay could not be condoned by State Commission—Petitioner has not put forward any pressing circumstances as to why appeal could not be filed within time before State Commission—Special limitation periods have been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes—Negligence and deliberate inaction is imputable to petitioner—No occasion to interfere with order passed by State Commission—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 11, 15 and 16)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Registrar, University of Agricultural Science against the order dated 04.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telengana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FAIA.514/2017.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant took admission in the petitioner University in B.Sc. (Agriculture) and paid a fees of Rs.3,25,000/- on 10.08.2015. The respondent attended classes from 17.08.2015 to 24.09.2015. On 24.09.2015, respondent applied for her documents and fees to be returned as she got admission in some other course in some other University. The documents were returned. However, the fee was not refunded. Therefore, the complainant/respondent filed a consumer complaint bearing No.631 of 2015 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad, (in short ‘the District Forum’). The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing written reply. However, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 27.01.2017 and directed the opposite party/petitioner herein to return an amount of Rs.2,92,044/- along with a cost of Rs.5,000/- only.
3. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the petitioner herein/opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2017.
4. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the rules of the University clearly provide that the fees deposited shall not be refunded in any case. Both the fora below have passed the order on the basis of the circular of UGC, which is not applicable to the petitioner herein. Moreover, that circular is applicable on those cases where the admission is sought to be cancelled before closing of the counselling. The classes for the Ist Semester of said B.Sc., Agri course started within a week i.e. on 17-8-2015. She attended the classes up to 24-9-2015. It was at that stage, the Complainant gave application for return of the original testimonials with a request to permit her to discontinue her course on the reason that she got seat in some other college. Her original certificates were retuned on the same date as per her request. Since, the seat for the said course allotted to the Complainant was meant for NRI and also the complainant joined the classes on 17-8-2015 and continued in the course up to 24-9-2015, the question of maintaining any waiting list of other candidates does not arise in the case on hand as the admissions were closed long back. In this connection the Clause No.5.1.2 of Academic Information and Regulations of the opposite party specifically reads as “Registration of candidates admitted from waiting list shall cease after 4 weeks of commencement of the Ist Semester. Hence as on the date of discontinuance of the complainant in respect of the said course i.e. on 24-9-2015, as per the said clause, the waiting list stood already ceased as more than the said period of 4 weeks had already elapsed. It was submitted that the after withdrawal of the complainant from the course the seat became vacant from the date of her discontinuance of the seat in the University of the Opposite Party and therefore, there was no possibility or scope to fill the said seat in the middle of the course. No other student was admitted by the opposite party against the said left out seat by the complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that there was a delay of 76 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal. The petitioner has a very strong case on merits and is hopeful to get his remedy in the appeal. It was requested that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal be decided on merits.
8. On the other hand learned counsel for the resp
