Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.C. Gupta, President, Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor and Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
NATASHA SINGH (MS.) - Appellant
Versus
THE REGISTRAR, PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ANR. - Respondents
Appeal Case No. 7 of 2009
Decided on : 14-01-2009
Mr. H.S. Parwana, Advocate, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
Compliance with UGC guidelines for fee deduction
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Refund of University Fees - The court upheld the decision of the District Consumer Forum, ruling that the university had rightly deducted fees as per UGC guidelines and there was no deficiency in service.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant deposited various amounts for different courses at Punjab University, and sought a refund for the excess amount. The university defended its actions, stating that the fees were deducted as per UGC guidelines.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the university had charged the total fee for the entire session and had rightly deducted the fees as per UGC guidelines. It upheld the decision of the District Consumer Forum and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Refund of university fees, compliance with UGC guidelines
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the university had charged the total fee for the entire session and had rightly deducted the fees as per UGC guidelines, thereby finding no deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the District Consumer Forum was upheld.
ORDER
K.C. Gupta, President - This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 22.12.2008 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) whereby her complaint was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant (complainant) after clearing CET got admission in 1st year B.Sc. (H.S.) course in department of Microbiology for the session 2007-08 in Punjab University and deposited Rs. 5255 on 11.7.2007. Subsequently she was admitted in B. Pharmacy 1st year course for the same session and deposited Rs. 1,780 whereas already deposited amount of Rs. 5,255 was transferred in the account of B. Pharmacy and as such total of Rs. 7,035 was deposited with Punjab University. Later on she took admission in BDS course in Punjab University and amount of Rs. 3,689 was refunded to her and balance of Rs. 3,346 remained with the Punjab University.
3. It was next averred that at the time of getting admission in BDS, she had deposited Rs. 10,0810 vide receipt dated 26.7.2007 Annexure C-1. However, later on she was fortunate to get admission in MBBS in Adesh Medical College, Bathinda and applied for refund of amount of Rs. 3,346 and Rs. 1,00,810 which were declined vide letter Annexure C-3. Later on the university refunded the amount except Rs. 26,203. Still dissatisfied with the conduct of Punjab University, present complaint was filed.
4. The Punjab University filed reply and stated that appellant had attended classes upto 10.8.2007 and as such Rs. 26,203 were rightly deducted as per UGC guidelines/norms and as such there was no deficiency in service and prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.
5. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavit.
6. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 22.12.2008 dismissed the complaint.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard Counsel for appellant Sh. H.S. Parwana,advocate and gone through the file carefully.
9. A perusal of complaint shows that Punjab University had charged total fee of Rs. 10,0810 for 12 months and the monthly fee comes to Rs. 8,401. The session of BDS was from 7th June, 2007 to 8th May, 2008. She attended classes up to 16.8.2008. i.e. she attended classes for about 2 months. So, fee of three months is to be deducted out of total fee deposited by her. The fee of three months comes to Rs. 25,203. She was also to pay Rs. 1,000 as administrative charges under the UGC guidelines, copy of which is Annexure R-3. In this manner, Punjab University had rightly deducted Rs. 26,203 and as such there is no deficiency on its part.
11. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed in limine.
12. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge.
