The main legal point established in the judgment is that the university's retention of 25% of the admission fee, based on a syndicate decision, was deemed illegal and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

ORDER

K.C. Gupta, President - This appeal has been directed by opposite parties against order dated 8.8.2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which the complaint of respondent Ms. Deepika Mohan (complainant) was accepted with costs of Rs. 2,500 and the appellants were directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 46,266 already refunded from 1.12.2002, after the expiry of three months from the date of surrendering the seat in August, 2002, till repayment of the said amount, to refund Rs. 15,422 along with interest @ 9% from 1.12.2002 till the date of payment.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Ms. Deepika Mohan, respondent (complainant) had got admission to Bachelor of Engineering (Ist year course) in the Communication and Information Technology Branch on 7.7.2002 with the university Institute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh (appellant No. 2). She had deposited an amount of Rs. 61,688 with the appellants on the same day vide receipt Annexure C-1. However, later on she was admitted in the Electrical Branch of Bachelor of Engineering (1st year) in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh on 30.7.2002. The charges/tuition fee at the Punjab Engineering College were much lower as she was required to pay only Rs. 1.02 lacs in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh instead of Rs. 4 lacs which she was required to pay in the Telecommunication and Information Technology Branch at Punjab University. Since, there was difference in the tuition fee of nearly three times, so, she opted to join Punjab Engineering College and surrendered her paid seat in the Punjab University.

3. It was next averred that she moved an application for refund of fee deposited by her at the time of her admission but the appellants did not refund fee despite surrendering her seat in August, 2002. She made several representations and gave reminders time and again including the reminder given in August, 2003 and ultimately on 29.10.2003 an amount of Rs. 46,266 was refunded while the balance amount of Rs. 15,422 was not refunded and was retained by appellants. The copy of the letter to this effect is Annexure C-3. Thus, the appellants retained the tuition fee paid by her for more than a year despite the fact that she had surrendered the seat and was occupied by another candidate and did not remain vacant. Later on it was informed to her vide letter Annexure C-4 by Punjab University, Chandigarh that 25% of the admission fee had been retained as per decision of the Syndicate. However, she had challenged the retention of 25% of the total fee being illegal on the ground that Syndicate had not mentioned in the prospectus that if a candidate left after admission, then 25% would be retained as per decision of the Syndicate. It was not further mentioned in the prospectus that 25% of the total fee deposited at the time of admission would be retained if candidate left after taking admission and seat is allotted to another candidate.

4. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

5. Appellants contested the complaint and stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part as they had already refunded Rs. 46,266 to the respondent in accordance with the decision of the Syndicate dated 17.3.2003 and further the respondent was not a consumer. They next stated that in the handbook of information and rules for admission, 2002, it had been expressly provided under the heading "General Important Notes" which was at page No. (i) point (v) that the fee once paid at the time of admission to any course shall not be refunded under any circumstances except in the case of refundable security or where explicitly specified and further at page 35 under the heading notes' the rule regarding refund of tuition fee had been provided. On merits, they admitted that the respondent got admission in the Communication and Information Technology Bra