Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.C. Gupta, President, Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor and Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
REGISTRAR, PUNJAB UNIVERSITY - Appellant
Versus
YOGESH BANSAL - Respondent
Appeal Case No. 635 of 2007
Decided on : 13-12-2007
Mr. Varun Katayal, Advocate, for the Appellant; In person., for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that university rules regarding refund entitlement prevail over attempts to retain funds, and adopting unfair trade practices in educational institutions is not permissible.
Headnote:
Refund - Admission Fee - Punjab University Calendar Volume-III, 2005 Rule 3
Fact of the Case:
The respondent deposited an amount for admission to a university but later requested a refund due to not joining the department. The university delayed the refund and only refunded a small portion of the amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was entitled to a refund of the entire amount as per the university rules, despite the university's attempt to retain the funds.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent was entitled to a refund of the remaining amount after withdrawing from the department.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 3 of Punjab University Calendar Volume-III, 2005, which stated that a student who withdraws from a department before joining is entitled to a full refund.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order for the university to refund the remaining amount to the respondent.
ORDER
K.C. Gupta, President - This appeal has been directed by the opposite parties against order dated 9.8.2007 passed by the consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) whereby complaint of respondent was accepted with costs of Rs. 2100 and the appellants were directed to refund the amount of Rs. 15,115 to the respondent, to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the same would carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till actual payment.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on the basis of CET-2004 respondent Yogesh Bansal appeared for Counselling on 28.7.2004 for taking admission in B.Sc (Maths and computing). He deposited Rs. 15,355 vide receipt for taking admission. However, due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not take admission and moved an application for leaving/vacating the seat to the Mathematics department on 4.8.2004 which was forwarded to the Chemical department and the application for leaving the seat was confirmed by Chemical department on 6.8.2004.
3. It was next averred that thereafter respondent applied for refund of the deposited amount on prescribed proforma but the Chemical department advised that his application for refund of amount would be taken up after 2nd Counselling which was to be done on 17.8.2004. Thereafter, the university did not refund the amount in spite of his repeated visits. Later on, chemical department stated that his previous application had been misplaced and advised him to file fresh application and accordingly he submitted fresh application for refund of amount on 18.2.2005 ultimately he received a cheque of Rs. 240 of Punjab University, Chandigarh dated 31.3.2005 instead of full amount of Rs. 15,355.
4. Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed.
5. Appellants (opposite parties) contested the complaint and admitted that the respondent was admitted on 28.7.2004 in B.Sc. (HS) Maths and computing on the basis of CET- test through a joint admission cell in the department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh and he deposited Rs. 15225 vide university receipt dated 3.8.2004 and further deposited Rs. 100 with the department of mathematics on account of mathematics society. They next admitted that an application from the respondent was received by the department of mathematics on 4.8.2004 for vacating the sea which was forwarded to the department of chemical engineering and technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh. However, they stated that application for refund of admission fee was never submitted on 6.8.2004 to the department of Chemical Engineering and further no such application was received by the department of mathematics. When the respondent approached the department of mathematics, he was advised to submit an application which was submitted by him on 18.2.2005 and the same was duly processed and a cheque of Rs. 240 dated 31.3.2005 was sent and the amount was refunded under rules/university calendar. They denied other allegations and stated that there was no deficiency on their part and as such complaint should be dismissed.
6. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 9.8.2007 accepted the complaint with costs of Rs. 2100 and passed order as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties have filed the present appeal.
9. We have heard Counsel for appellants Sh. Varun Katayal, Sh. Yogesh Bansal, respondent in person and carefully gone through the file.
10. It is an admitted fact that respondent(complainant) was admitted on 28.7.2004 in B.Sc. (HS) Maths and computing on the basis of CET Test, through a joint admission cell in the department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh. He had paid Rs. 15225 on 3.8.2004 as admission fee and Rs. 1
