CHITKARA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY vs Ajay Pal Singh

THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [hereinafter, for short, referred to as District Forum-II], dated 22.7.2003 in Complaint Case No. 86 of 2004, Sh. Ajay Pal Singh v. Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology and Another.

SALIENT aspects of the complaint are that the complainant appeared in Common Entrance Test (CET)-2002 conducted by Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar and cleared this test with 3021 rank in the merit list. On 26.7.2002 the complainant, on first counselling was allotted a seat in Mechanical Engineering (paid) in Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology i.e., O.P. No. 1 Institute. The complainant immediately deposited Rs. 10,000/- with Punjab Technical University out of which Rs. 7,500/- were to be transferred to the O.P. No. 1 Institute as fee of the 1st Semester. It is alleged that at the time of depositing the fee the complainant was assured that in case he gets admission in any other College/University 90% of the fee deposited by him will be refunded or transferred to the College/University in which he gets admission, subject to the Institute recovering the amount from PTU. The complainant deposited the balance fee of Rs. 61,943/-. Subsequently, on 21.8.2002, the complainant was allotted a seat in Electronic and Communication Engineering as a result of upgradation. In the meantime, the complainant was successful in getting admission in University Institute of Engineering and Technology (UIET) of Punjab University, Chandigarh. Consequently, the complainant informed the O.P. Institute about his surrendering of his seat by letter dated 27.8.2002 before second counselling. In another letter addressed to Vice-Chancellor, PTU, he categorically demanded refund of fee deposited by him. Another letter dated 1.11.2002 was written by the complainant to the Principal of O.P. Institute seeking immediate refund of the fee but only Rs. 11,000/- were refunded out of Rs. 69,443/- deposited. When efforts of the complainant failed to get refund of the balance amount, he served legal notice to the Principal of O.P. Institute dated 13.8.2003 but there was no response. A legal notice dated 17.9.2003 was also served to Director of the O.P. Institute but of no avail. Hence, the complaint seeking following reliefs: "(i) The opposite party No. 1 be directed to refund the balance amount of fee i.e., Rs. 58,443/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit of the fee and till its realisation. (ii) The opposite party No. 2 be directed to remit the amount of Rs. 7,500/- to opposite party No. 1 if the same has not been done till date. (iii) Compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and mental agony. (iv) Litigation expenses Rs. 10,000/-."

The O.Ps. were given repeated adjournments and time to file Vakalatnama and written statements but even after four months and five days, only Vakalatnama for O.P. No. 2 was filed and Vakalatnama for O.P. No. 1 as well as written statements of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were not filed. The O.Ps. were given no further adjournment keeping in view the mandate of the Hon''ble National Commission that the consumer complaint be disposed of within three months of the service of O.Ps. The case was thus decided ex parte against the O.Ps.

Learned District Forum-II has in the impugned order noted the provisions of para 9 of the admission brochure issued by PTU/O.P. No. 2 of which Clause (iv) speaks of shifting of already admitted students to another Institution/Branch within the University as under: "9. Second counselling to fill the vacant seats- Second counselling to fill the vacant seats will be held as per the schedule given in this brochure. Candidates fulfilling any of the following conditions will be eligible for appearing in second counselling on the basis of CET-2002 merit- (i) A candidate who did not avail of the first counselling. (ii) A candidate who could not get admission in the first counselling. (iii) A candidate who was admitted in the first counselling and did not report to the college (his/her initial deposit shall stand forfeited). (iv) A candidate who is already admitted in an institution in the first counselling and seeks shifting to another institute/branch within the University. Such candidates are required to deposit a processing fee of Rs. 2,500/- again to be eligible for 2nd counselling. Note: He/she will have to surrender 10% of his/her tuition fee to the institution in which he/she was admitted during first counselling and the balance 90% tuition fee and funds will be transferred to the other institution affiliated to the PTU."

HOWEVER, the learned District Forum mainly relied on the affidavit of the complainant wherein it has been stated that he was promised refund of 90% of his fees, if he joins some other Institute or College or even some other University. Since, this allegation has not been denied by the O.P. No. 2 and moreover O.P. No. 2 has not placed its prospectus on record, the learned District Forum-II held that non-refund of 90% of the fees is a deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 2. Consequently, it directed O.P. No. 2 to refund Rs. 51,498.70 p. to the complainant after taking into account Rs. 11,000/- already refunded and also allowed interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 27.8.2002 till payment on this amount. It also directed O.P. No. 2 to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, the O.Ps. have filed this appeal, which was taken on board and the record of the complaint case was summoned from District Forum-II and the notice was sent to the respondent/complainant. Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants/O.Ps. whereas Mr. Sukant Prabhakar, Advocate represented the respondent/complainant.

MR. Dinesh Arora, Advocate submitted that the complainant had left the O.P. Institute of his own and has joined a college of another University and under para 9(iv) of para B of C.E.T. (2002) Admission Brochure, which is on record, the complainant is not entitled to any refund. He further submitted that even the learned District Forum in para 5 of the impugned order has held that under this clause of the brochure, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. He emphatically submitted that the terms and conditions of the brochure were binding on both parties and to support his plea, he cited following judgments: 1. Shri Ramdeobaba Engineering College v. Sushant Yuvraj Rode and Another, 1995 (1) CPC 184. 2. International Institute of Information and Technology and Others v. Shri Sumer Singh, I (2004) CPJ 522=2004(1) CPC 383 (S.C. CHD). Mr. Sukant Prabhakar, Advocate submitted that para 6 of the impugned order clearly brings out that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 2. He further submitted that there is no written statement or evidence produced by the O.Ps. and even the prospectus was not placed on record and the same cannot be now produced as evidence. He also added that in view of this the judgments cited were not relevant to this case. He next submitted that the Director of the O.P. Institute had in person assured the complainant that in case of his admission elsewhere the fee would be refunded and a refund of Rs. 11,000/- by the O.P. Institute proves that such an assurance was given to the complainant. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the impugned order be upheld. We have gone through the record of the complaint case with care and have also heard the Counsels for the parties. It is clear that C.E.T.-2002 Admission Brochure is on record and reference to it has been made at para 5 of the impugned order and sub-para 9(iv) of para "B" of this brochure has been extracted at para 4 of the impugned order. It is also settled law that terms and conditions of the brochure are binding on the parties but in this case, there is specific averment made on oath that the condition of sub-para 9(iv) notwithstanding, there was categoric assurance given to the complainant that his fee would be refunded in case he got admission not only in any other Institute/College but even when he got the same in another University and the O.Ps. have not denied this averment. Moreover, a sum of Rs. 11,000/- was refunded to the complainant and this act of the O.Ps. lends credence to the version of the complainant. If the O.Ps. had no assurance of refund to the complainant, there was no reason for them to refund even the amount of Rs. 11,000/-.

FROM the evidence on record, we are of the clear view that the categoric assurance was given by the O.Ps. to the complainant that 90% of his deposited fee would be refunded in case he gets admission in any other College/Institute even of a different University. Under these circumstances, the O.Ps. are duty-bound to refund 90% of the fee deposited by the complainant with O.Ps. We, therefore, find that the impugned order is just, fair and legal and it does not require any interference. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as it lacks merit. The parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.