AND TECHNOLOGY vs Sumer Singh

THIS is an appeal filed against order dated 5.8.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 200 of 2001, Sumer Singh v. International Institute of Information Technology and 2 Others.

THE complainant sought an admission to the 2nd Year Class of the Degree Course of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering at the appellants-International Institute of Information Technology [for short hereinafter referred to as the institute] and deposited fees of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. THE case of the complainant is that while taking admission, he was told by the institute that in case he succeeded in seeking admission in any other engineering college, the appellant-institute would refund the fees of Rs. 50,000/- to him. It was on this understanding with the OPs, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 10.8.2000 vide receipt Annexure C-1. It was alleged that the complainant was successful in getting admission in the B.E. Degree course in Guru Nanak Engineeing College, Ludhiana and he approached personally and telephonically to the appellants seeking the refund of the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was declined vide letter dated 9.11.2000 and this amounted to deficiency in service. The complainant sought refund of the principal amount of Rs. 50,000/-, interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 10.8.2000 till its refund and litigation expenses of Rs. 10.000/-.

The complaint was contested by the OPs who took a plea that IIIT College of Engineering was situated in Village Kala Amb, District Sirmour in the State of Himachal Pradesh and the O.P. No.1-Institute at Manimajra, Chandigarh had got no connection with the admission to that College and, as such, the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum was disputed. It was, however, not disputed that the fees of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by the complainant but it was not admitted that any assurance was given for the refund of the amount to the complainant, in case he succeeded in getting admission to some other engineering college in Punjab. Reference was made to the instructions issued by the IIIT Kala Amb that the tuition fees and charges once deposited would not be refunded under any circumstances or for any reason whatsoever.

PARTIES led evidence before the District Forum. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint who directed the O.Ps. to refund of Rs. 50.000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from 9.11.2000 till payment because it was the date of the letter (Exhibit Annexure C-3) vide which the IIIT College of Engineering refused to refund the deposited amount to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded as costs of proceedings. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, this appeal has been filed by the O.Ps. The complaint was contested by the respondent/complainant who was represented by Mr. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate appeared and argued the appeal on behalf of the appellants.

MR. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate submitted that tuition fees and charges once deposited were not liable to be refunded under any circumstances or for any reason whatsoever. The security deposited was, however, refundable after adjustment of tuition fee not paid for any reason whatsoever. The averment regarding the refund of the fee deposited in case the repondent/complainant sought admission in any engineering college in Punjab is only frivolous and there is no document containing written assurance has been placed on record. The District Forum laid great stress on the point that the Receipt Annexure C-1 did not show as to for what purpose a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by the complainant. The learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the Receipt Voucher which reads as under : "RECEIPT VOUCHER" Receipt No. 128. Date : 10.8.2000 Received with thanks a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) through Bank Scroll No. DD/Cash ........... Cash dated-on account of fee MR. Sumer Singh S/o MR. Prabhdev Singh Gill, IInd Year Electronic and Comm. Sd/- For Accounts Officer International Institute of Information Technology-IIIT."

A perusal of this document will go to show that the amount was deposited towards fees and Annexure C-3 shows that the complainant was told specifically under the Head "College Fee Instructions" that "The Tuition Fee and Charges once deposited will not be refunded under any circumstances or for any reason whatsover. Security Deposit will be refunded after adjustment of dues including Tuition Fee for Second, Third or Fourth year not paid for any reason whatsoever." The mere fact that the appellant did not attend the classes for the course in which he had taken admission in the Institute at Kala Amb is not the requirement for the refund of the fees deposited by him. It is the own conduct of the complainant in not attending the classes run by the Institute of the Course in which he took admission. The appellants cannot be blamed for the fact that the complainant did not attend the classes run by the Institute in the course nor the complainant can take any advantage from his own conduct. It is well-settled principle that the terms and conditions of the brochure are binding on the candidate as well as the institute. Reference may be made to a judgment of the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in the case of "Subhash Chandra v. The Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and Another" 1997 (3) Recent Services Judgments 346, wherein the Hon''ble High Court held that the respondent would be bound by the terms and conditions of the brochure, as they have declared to the public and cannot be permitted to amend or alter them at any subsequent stage and especially in absence of reservation of such a power. The case related to the petitioner who was appointed as Junior Laboratory Technician in the respondent-institute. Regarding the brochure governing the appointment, it was held, "The brochure must be read as written and it will not be permissible to add or subtract words from the language of such clause and on the basis of which not only the petitioner but the public at large has acted upon. The respondents would be bound by the terms and conditions of the brochure, as they have declared to the public and cannot be permitted to amend or alter them at any subsequent stage and especially in absence of reservation of such a power."

APART from it, it may be pointed out that the complainant is expected to read the contents of the brochure/prospectus or other relevant documents before deciding to seek admission and depositing the fees and if he had carefully perused the same, he would have known that fees was not liable to be refunded.

THE appeal has thus considerable merit and is allowed. THE impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. THE complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal allowed.