CHITKARA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY vs R.K. NARANG

IN this appeal filed against judgment and order dated 1.4.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum), the Complaint Case No. 145/2003 filed by the respondent Shri R.K. Narang was allowed to the extent that a direction was issued for the refund of the fees of Rs. 51,443/- by deducting 10% of the amount, which was worked out as Rs. 5,144/-. After deducting this amount of Rs. 5,144/-, the remaining amount of Rs. 46,299/- was ordered to be refunded to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 15.9.2002 till its payment. The costs were quantified at Rs. 500/-.

THE learned Counsel appeared for the appellant-Chitkara Institute of Engineering and Technology (for short hereinafter to be referred as Institute) submitted before us that the District Forum went wrong in ordering for the refund of the amount of Rs. 46,299/- after deduction of a sum of Rs. 5,144/- being 10% of the amount inasmuch as the term and condition as set out in the brochure at Serial No. 9 dealing with second counselling to fill the vacant seats, was applicable in the instant case and the refund of the fees could not be ordered in case the candidate is admitted/shifted to another institute/branch within the University. Sub-condition No. (iv) of Condition No. 9 provides as under: "(iv) A candidate who is already admitted in an institution in the first counselling and seeks shifting to another institution/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 counselling and the balance 90% tuition fee and funds will be transferred to the other institution affiliated to the PTU."

The PTU, which has been referred to above, means Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. A photocopy of the admission brochure has been placed on record. The front page of the brochure reads "CET-2002" i.e., Common Entrance Test-2002. It mentions "Admission to First Year of Bachelor of Engineering/ Technology/Architecture, etc." The Common Entrance Test was scheduled to be held on Sunday, June 2, 2002.

It is not disputed that the son of the complainant Shri Rahul Narang appeared at the Common Entrance Test-2002 and he went to appellant-Institute for studying engineering after clearing 10+2 examination. The son of the complainant had also passed N.D.A examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in which he received a letter for interview on 11.8.2002 to appear for SSB interview at Bhopal on 2.9.2002. Since the selection in the interview to be held at Bhopal was yet to be finalised and as such with a view to secure a seat at PTU, Jalandhar, Shri Rahul Narang son of the complainant attended second counselling on 31.8.2002 at the appellant-Institute and before depositing the security, the matter regarding the selection of Shri Rahul Narang in NDA was discussed with Mr. Mohit Chitkara, Vice-Chairman of the appellant-Institute who, it is alleged, assured to refund the fee, if the son of the complainant was selected in the SSB interview and did not join the appellant-Institute. It was thereafter that the complainant and his son left for Bhopal on 1.9.2002 for SSB interview. The wife of the complainant got issued a draft for a sum of Rs. 51,443/- on 2.9.2002 and handed over the same in the office of the appellant. The wife of the complainant requested the authorities of the appellant-Institute before depositing the draft that the draft be not submitted for realisation for at least 10 days till the result of SSB interview was declared.

IT is alleged that the appellant-Institute did not present the demand draft to the Bank for realisation till 11.9.2002. The son of the complainant attended the interview at Bhopal from 2.9.2002 to 11.9.2002 and passed the interview and final result was declared on 11.9.2002. Soon thereafter the complainant approached the appellant-Institute at their office situated in Sector 36 for the refund of the draft of Rs. 51,443/-. An application was also moved for the purpose on 15.9.2002. The son of the complainant did not join the appellant-Institute but refund was not allowed to him. The complainant made several visits to the office of the appellant-Institute located in Sector 9 and Sector 36 and sent letter on 12.11.2002 and served a notice also on 10.1.2003 and thereafter filed the complaint seeking the refund. It was specifically stated by the complainant in the complaint as well as in the affidavit that his son did not join the appellant-Institute but despite this, the refund of the amount of draft was not made. Reference to the assurance given by the authorised Chairman of the appellant-Institute for not encashing the draft was made in para 5 of the affidavit dated 23.1.2003.

IN the written statement, as mentioned above, the appellant took the plea that the aforesaid clause of the terms and conditions mentioned in the brochure clearly showed that the appellant-INstitute will be entitled to deduct a sum of 10% of the amount deposited by the candidate in case such a candidate is shifted to any other institute under the same University i.e., PTU. In the instant case, the son of the complainant did not join any institute under the same University and hence, the complainant could not seek refund of the amount of the draft. The minutes of the meeting of the Principals held on 12.9.2002 at 11.00 a.m. in the University were circulated under PTU vide letter dated 13.9.2002 wherein at Item No. 2 dealing with transfer of fee from one college to another as a result of 2nd counselling, it was decided that the fee of the students who have been transferred to other colleges in the 2nd counselling shall be transferred by all colleges latest by 30.9.2002. The instructions already communicated to the colleges shall be followed by deducting 10% of the tuition fee of the first semester only. The remaining fee collected from the students shall be transferred to their new college. The new college will also charge only 10% of the tuition fee of first semester only. It was further decided that no transfer of fee is to be made in case a candidate does not report to the new college after second counselling. Also the whole fee of the candidate shall stand forfeited if he/she takes admission in a college other than the allotted one.

THE District Forum considered the rival contentions and held, inter alia, as under: "In the instant case also the complainant did not join the institution due to his selection in NDA for training to join the Indian Armed forces as an officer. Complainant as per his affidavit had requested O.Ps. to await encashment of the draft till the outcome of the NDA interview. THE fact that O.P. did not deposit the draft till 11.9.2002 points towards such request having been made by the complainant, although O.P. denies it."

THE District Forum also took into consideration the fact that admittedly the son of the complainant did not attend the classes even for a single day and, therefore, it was not rational and reasonable for the O.P. to retain the fee deposited by the son of the complainant. THEreafter, reference was made to the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Unnikrishnna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it was held that education has never been commerce in this country. Making it one is opposed to the ethics and traditions and ''Sanskars'' of this nation. THE argument to the contrary has an unholy ring to it. Thus, retention of the amount of tuition fee collected by O.P. in the aforesaid circumstances would clearly amount to deficiency in service. It was not disputed by the appellant-Institute that the son of the complainant/respondent did not attend the appellant-Institute or studied even for a single day. It was deposed by Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Chitkara, Director of appellant-Institute that there is no condition prescribed in the prospectus, which enables the complainant to seek refund of fee deposited in case the course is not joined. The only enabling condition is transfer of 90% of the fee paid to other institution affiliated to P.T.U. in case the change in the institution is there. It was deposed further that the complainant wanted to sail in two boats at the same time, which is not possible. The complainant cannot be permitted to take chances at the risk and cost of the respondents. Non-admission of the son of the complainant at a latter date means wasting of seat that too in the paid category.

The respondent/complainant submitted before us that his son did not join the appellant-Institute. The draft was given and second counselling was attended and seat was allotted on 31.8.2000. The son of the respondent/complainant joined NDA and there was never any occasion for attending the appellant-Institute and as such question of transfer to other institute and leaving the college did not arise. It was also contended by the respondent/complainant who argued the case personally that his son did not fill any form for admission to the appellant-Institute. So far as the loss of seat to the appellant-Institute is concerned, the District Forum has already ordered the deduction of 10% of the fee under the terms and conditions referred to in Condition No. 9 of the brochure.

AFTER carefully considering the material placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum has rightly held that the son of the respondent/complainant did not join the appellant-Institute and had instead requested the appellant-Institute not to send the draft for encashment for a period of 10 days i.e., up to 11.9.2002 as the son of the complainant was going to appear at SSB interview at Bhopal for selection in NDA. The affidavit filed by the complainant clearly makes an averment about the said request having been made and the fact that the draft was not sent for encashment up to 11.9.2002 lends credence to the submission of the respondent/complainant. Condition No. 9(iv) of the brochure and note appended thereto entitles the appellant-Institute to deduct 10% of the amount deposited and the Institute cannot claim the balance amount of 90%. Since in the instant case, admission was not taken in any other Institute under the same PTU, Jalandhar, hence, the question of transfer of balance fees of 90% did not arise.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the brochure and relied on the case of Shri Ramdeobaba Engineering College v. Sushant Yuvraj Roade and Another, 1995 (1) CPC 184, and International Institute of Information and Technology and Others v. Shri Sumer Singh, I (2004) CPJ 522=2004 (1) CPC 383. The Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short hereinafter to be referred as National Commission) in the case of Shri Ramdeobaba Engineer College (supra), held that the respondent/complainant Shri Roade withdrew from the College to join another institute voluntarily and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering College. Non-refund of admission fee is not a deficiency in service. Admission fee is a consideration for admission and the service which the Engineering College was to render to the student in the matter of his pursuing studies in the college after admission. It is a quid pro quo for such service. The facts of the authority relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the case of Shri Ramdeobaba Engineering College (supra) are clearly distinguishable insofar as the case in hand is concerned. In the said case of Shri Ramdeobaba Engineering College (supra), the student had taken admission and thereafter voluntarily withdrew to join another institution whereas in the case in hand, the son of the complainant did not join the appellant-Institute as he had been selected in NDA. In case the son of the complainant had joined the Institute to which he was admitted and thereafter he withdrew from the College for pursuing study in another institute, the law laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission would have been applicable to this case also.

IN the case decided by this Commission i.e., INternational INstitute of INformation and Technology and Others (supra) in Appeal No. 528 of 2003 decided on 19.12.2003, the complainant sought admission to the 2nd Year Class of Degree Course of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering at appellant-INternational INstitute of INformation and Technology and deposited fees of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The case of the complainant was that while taking admission, he was told by the institute that in the 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 O.Ps., 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 Engineering 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. The institute disputed the case of the complainant about any such averment regarding the refund of the fees in case the complainant sought admission in any Engineering College in Punjab was described to be frivolous and not supported by any document. Apart from it, the complainant had taken admission in the institute and he thereafter shifted to take admission to the other institute. IN these circumstances, it was held that 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. These facts are clearly distinguishable from the facts involved in the instant case.

UNDOUBTEDLY, the terms and conditions contained in the brochure for seeking admission are binding on both the parties i.e., the institute and the student but it may be noticed that in the instant case, no admission was ever taken by the son of the complainant at the appellant-Institute who, as per the relevant Condition 9(iv) of the brochure and note appended thereto, was entitled at best to deduct 10% of the fee deposited and since NDA was not an institute run by PTU, Jalandhar 90% of the amount could not be transferred to the place where the son of the complainant appeared in the interview and succeeded there. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs of appeal. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.