(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):

This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.01.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 105 of 2004 and directing the opposite party to pay to the complainants sum of Rs. 22,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that one Km. Meenu Kumar – complainant No. 2 took admission in Bachelor of Physiotherapy course for the academic year 2004-2005 in Sardar Bhagwan Singh Post Graduate Institute of Biomedical Sciences and Research – opposite party. Complainant No. 1 – Sh. Pramod Kumar, father of Km. Meenu Kumar, deposited Rs. 69,000/- against course fee in Punjab National Bank. The complainant No. 1 had told the opposite party that the daughter had also applied for B.Sc. (Hons.) O.T. course in Deen Dayal Hospital, New Delhi and if she would succeed in getting the admission there, she would ask for the refund of the fee deposited with the opposite party. The opposite party did not object to it and said that if timely information during process of admission was given and the seat vacated by Km. Meenu Kumar is filled up by another candidate and the opposite party does not suffer any financial loss, the fee would be refunded. The complainant No. 1 informed the opposite party vide his letter dated 05.08.2004 that his daughter had got admission in Deen Dayal Hospital, New Delhi and, therefore, the fee deposited be refunded. In reply, the opposite party informed the complainants that sum of Rs. 17,000/-, which was deposited against hostel fee, could be refunded provided that the complainants furnish an undertaking to the effect that the fee deposited under other heads would not be claimed by them. This led the complainants to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide order impugned dated 08.01.2008 in the above terms. Not satisfied with the relief awarded by the District Forum, the complainants have filed this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the same is admitted for decision on merit.

5. The learned counsel for the opposite party – respondent argued that the opposite party has not made any deficiency in service because deficiency in relation to academic institutions means that the institution has not provided facilities required for the course, viz. qualified faculty, laboratory, library etc. The complainants have not alleged any such deficiency in service. The allegation of the complainants is with regard to refund of the fee deposited by them. In respect of the fee deposited by the complainants, it is clearly stated in the prospectus that, “once admission is confirmed and fee is deposited, it is not refundable or transferable under any circumstances and it does not include fees for education tours. However, seat so falling vacant, will be filled”.

6. The learned counsel for the opposite party also submitted that the candidate – complainant No. 2 had also signed a declaration while applying for the said course. One of the clauses of this declaration was that, “I shall abide by the rules and regulations as given in the Hand Book of information or that may be framed by the institute from time to time.”

7. Thus, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party has not made any deficiency in service. In support of his contention, learned counsel pressed into service a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Apeejay Institute of Management and Information Technology Vs. Prashant Ashok, 2009 NCJ 237 (NC). In the reported decision, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that as per the undertaking given by the guardian of the complainant, refund o