Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Pritam Pal, President, Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor and Neena Sandhu, Members
SUMIT SINGLA AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
GOSWAMI GANESH DUTTA SANATAN DHARMA COLLEGE (SDCC) AND ANR. - Respondents
Appeal Case No. 224 of 2009
Decided on : 13-05-2010
Mr. Krishan Singla, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sudhir Theari, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that the entitlement to a refund of fees in cases of withdrawal from educational institutions is determined by the specific circumstances and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions.
Headnote:
Refund of Fees - Consumer Complaint - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(d)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including the definitions of 'complainant', 'deficiency in service', 'consumer', and 'unfair trade practice'. The court also referred to the specific provisions related to refund of fees and the rights of consumers in cases of withdrawal from educational institutions. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions, particularly in relation to the complainant's attendance, the vacancy of the seat, and the applicability of previous case law.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought a refund of fees from a college after withdrawing from a course to pursue another field of study. The college refused the refund, citing terms and conditions in the prospectus and the university calendar.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant had attended classes and voluntarily left the institution, and that the seat vacated by the complainant remained vacant throughout the academic session. The court also noted that the complainants did not rebut the college's statements.
Issues: The issues included the complainant's attendance, the vacancy of the seat, and the applicability of previous case law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant's actions did not entitle them to a refund based on the specific circumstances and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions.
Final Decision: The court upheld the dismissal of the complaint, dismissing the appeal and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
ORDER
Pritam Pal, President - This appeal by complainants is directed against the order dated 20.12.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby their complaint bearing No. 821 of 2007 for claiming refund of fee and compensation was dismissed.
2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.
3. In nutshell the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus:
The complainant No. 1 Mr. Sumit Singla took admission in PGDCA course in OP college and deposited a sum of Rs. 22060 with Central Bank of India, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh as fees vide receipt dated 14.7.2007. According to the complainants, after a couple of days consultations took place in the family and it was decided to enroll Sumit Singla in some other field of Business, so, he took admission in MBA course on 12.9.2007 in some other college by paying fees of Rs. 8250. The complainants thereafter visited the office of OP-1 and requested for refund of the fees paid at the time of admission in OP college . They also moved an application to this effect on 3.8.2007. The Principal of OP college directed the complainants to visit his office on 30.8.2007 to collect the refund of fees as by that time the seat vacated by him shall be filled. Complainants requested OP-1 to give them the diary number of the application given by them, however, the principal put off the matter, so, they sent second copy of the application by registered post on 4.8.2007. However, on 30.8.2007 when complainants visited the office of OP-1 and requested for refund of the fees, the Principal of OP No. 1 refused to entertain them. According to the complainants, as per the rules relating to the refund of the payment, the candidate who is admitted to the course but surrenders the seat prior to the last date of admission as per schedule approved by Panjab University, is entitled to refund of the fees. The complainant No. 1 had surrendered the seat in writing on 3.8.2007 which was much prior to the last date of admission. It was further alleged that the seat surrendered by the complainant was filled and thus refusal to refund the fees by the OPs amounted to deficiency in service and as such the complainants filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking refund of the fee along with interest and compensation.
4. On the other hand, the case of OP No. 1 before the District Consumer Forum was that the complainant No. 1 took admission in PGDCA course on 14.7.2007 and deposited the fees of Rs. 22,060 . He attended the classes upto 31.7.2007 and thereafter left the classes of his own. The complainant moved an application on 4.8.2007 for the refund of the fees and it was made clear to complainants that there was no provision for the refund of admission fee and other dues because as per terms and conditions laid down in the brochure, once the fees and other dues were paid, the same were not refundable. It was pleaded that even according to the Panjab University Calendar, in a department where fees are charged for the whole course in advance, a student who after admission is permitted to withdraw his name is not entitled to refund of fees. A declaration was also given by the complainant No. 1 in the admission form whereby he had undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions of the prospectus and not to claim refund if he withdrew himself of his own from OP college. It was further pleaded that the normal date of admission in PGDCA course with OP college was upto 16.7.2007 and the seat left by the complainant remained vacant throughout the session as out of 75 seats only 71 seats were filled for the academic session 2007-2008. So, according to OP-1 the complainant was not entitled to refund of any fee and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
5. However, Punjab University-OP-2 pleaded in its reply that the admission fee was received by the S.D. College and the same refused to refund the fee on
