GOSWAMI GANESH DUTT SANATAN DHARMA (GGDSD) COLLEGE SOCIETY vs ASEEM

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 3.2.2004 in Complaint Case No. 1102 of 2004: Asseem v. Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharma (GGDSD) College Society and Another.

ESSENTIALS of the complaint are that the complainant did his B.Sc. (CA) from Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatam Dharma College Society [hereinafter for short, referred to as College] in the year 2002. The College Management started Postgraduate Diploma in Computer Application [PGDCA, for short] Court from session 2002-2003 for enabling students to get admission in this course, in case of their failure to get admission in the Master''s course. The duration of the PGDCA course was to be one year and the total seats were 30. The Management of the college issued a prospectus in the year 2002-2003 which inter alia mentions that the dates of admission for the PGDCA course for normal admission were from 1.7.2002 to 13.7.2002 and in case of late admission it would be from 15.7.2002 to 27.7.2002 with the permission of the Principal and 29.7.2002 to 31.8.2002 with the permission of the Vice-Chancellor, Punjab University. The complainant also avers that this admission schedule started before the declaration of results of Entrance Test conducted by other educational institutions. The complainant had appeared for Entrance test for M.C.A. conducted by Punjabi University, Patiala for which Counselling date was fixed as 29.7.2002. He also approached the Management of the College for getting admission in PGDCA course and was told that there would be no vacant seat after 22.7.2002. Thus, under these circumstances he took admission in the PGDCA course and paid Rs. 16,650/- as the fee prescribed, on 22.7.2002. On 29.7.2002 the complainant appeared for M.C.A. at Punjabi University, Patiala and he was also selected for this course and thereafter on 5.8.2002 he deposited the requisite fee with the Punjabi University, Patiala for M.C.A. On 6.8.2002 the complainant approached the authorities of the College and found that the process of admission to PGDCA course was still on and this process even continued up to 6.9.2002. Had this fact of admissions carrying on till September, 2002 been known to the complainant he would not have deposited the fee for PGDCA course as early as 22.7.2002. The complainant opted out of the PGDCA course and the seat vacated by him was given by the College to another candidate. The complainant requested for refund of Rs. 16,650/- paid as the fee but the College Authorities refused to oblige. When the College Authorities did not agree to refund the fee, legal notice dated 4.10.2002 was served on the College Authorities and the Principal but there was no response to this notice. In the complaint the complainant prayed for following reliefs: (a) Payment of fee amount of Rs. 16,650/- along with amount of damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. (b) Payment of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. (c) Payment of a total of Rs. 46,650/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 22.7.2002 till payment.

The O.P. contested the case and stated that the complainant is not a consumer and has not come to the District Forum with clean hands. It was denied that the complainant was told that no seats would remain vacant in the PGDCA course on 22.7.2002. It is also submitted that the complainant voluntarily got admitted to the diploma course on 22.7.2002 by paying fees and dues amounting to Rs. 16,650/-. It is the case of the O.P. that the prospectus of the College makes it clear that the dues once paid could not be refunded and the complainant had signed a declaration in the admission from that he had understood all the terms and conditions of the prospectus and would be bound by them and this declaration was also counter-signed by his father. It is, therefore, the version of the O.Ps. that the complainant is estopped from claiming any refund. It has been pleaded by the O.Ps. that the allotment of seat vacated by the complainant to another candidate does not enable him to any refund. It has also been submitted by the O.P. that the date of admission to the PGDCA course had been extended by the University vide their letters annexed as Annexures R-2 and R-3.

Learned District Forum-II while discussing the case observed that the receipt dated 22.7.2002 by which the complainant had deposited Rs. 16,650/- with the O.Ps. showed the amount only against one item i.e. ''A security'' i.e., ''Admission Security''. The detail of fees or other dues is nowhere mentioned in this document nor is the breakup of Rs. 16,650/- stated in this document. It, therefore, held that this amount of Rs. 16,650/- had been accepted by the O.Ps. from the complainant only as admission security and as it had not been explained in the receipt that the amount has been charged as tuition fee, other fee or other dues. The learned District Forum did not accept the pleas of the O.Ps. that the amount of Rs. 16,650/- was paid to them as tuition fee, other fees and other dues. Thus, it was held by the learned District Forum that this amount did not fall under the condition printed at page 23 of the College Prospectus which inter alia mentions that ''fee and other dues once paid shall not be refunded''. Therefore, the learned District Forum held that the rule of non-refund printed at page 23 of the prospectus is not applicable to the case in hand and this amount has been received by the O.P. as ''admission security'' and not as fee or dues. Therefore, the O.Ps. were bound to refund this amount to the complainant on his demand accordingly. Consequently, the learned District Forum directed the O.Ps. to refund Rs. 16,650/- to the complainant with Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation. The O.Ps. however, were not burdened with any interest. The O.Ps. were also directed to refund this amount to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 3.2.2004 till payment on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 16,650/-.

AGGRIEVED by this order the O.P. College has filed this appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, record of the complaint case was summoned from District Forum-II and notice was sent to the respondent. Mr. Sudhir Theari, Advocate represented the appellant whereas Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent. Mr. Sudhir Theari, Advocate submitted that page-23 of the prospectus clearly states that there is no provision of refund of admission and tuition fee. He emphasized that in the receipt the amount indicated was not the amount received as security but the receipt was given for the lumpsum payment of all the dues towards fee and other dues. He further added that even the complainant in his complaint has nowhere stated that the amount deposited was a security and has sought any refund of the security. He emphasized that the entire amount of Rs. 16,650/- cannot be charged as a security. He further referred to Punjab University Calendar, Vol. III of 1996 which inter alia at para 3 mentions that ''In a department where fees are charged for the whole course in advance, a student who after admission is permitted to withdraw his name shall not be entitled to refund of fees.'' The learned Counsel further reiterated that the declaration in the admission form signed by the complainant and counter signed by his father also disentitles the complainant to seek any refund. The learned Counsel then submitted that the District Forum has misinterpreted the receipt. It has wrongly read ''Aseem'' as ''A security''. He emphatically put across that the receipt given for Rs. 16,650/- in the body contains the name of the complainant i.e., ''Aseem'' and it does not mean ''a security'' as interpreted by the learned District Forum. He submitted that though the receipt does not indicate the detailed breakdown of this amount, it includes no amount of any security and constitutes only the annual fees as laid down by the Punjab University vide their letter No. 4201-4320/Misc./A-6, dated 6.5.2002 in which at Sr. No. 7 the fee for PGDCA course has been indicated as Rs. 13,000/- per annum + University charges.

MR. S.S. Rana, Advocate, in response stated that the process of admission to the PGDCA course continued till September, 2002 and all 30 seats had been filled, therefore, there was no loss suffered by the College either financially or in filling of the seats. Therefore, the College is not entitled to retain the amount of Rs. 16,650/- paid, by the complainant. He emphasized that such withholding of refund amounts to undue enrichment of the College at the expenses of the complainant. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be upheld and the appeal be dismissed. We have perused the evidence on record and have also listened to the learned Counsels for the parties. The main controversy in this context is about the breakdown of Rs. 16,650/- i.e., does it include any security as well as fees or it is only fees and dues with no amount of security or whether it is only security and no dues/fees. It is settled law that both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the prospectus and filling of 30 seats by the College as stated by the complainant gives no ground of ban to terms and conditions of the prospectus. A critical examination of the receipt indicates that though the amount has been filled opposite columns ''College Security.'' ''Sc. Equipment Breakage Fund'', ''Science Fund'' and ''Music Charges'' and this amount has again been shown at the bottom opposite column ''College Magazine Fund'', ''House Examination Fund''. ''Elect. and water Charges,'' yet the name of Aseem is unmistakably written opposite this amont. The writng on the receipt is quite clear, however under some misapprehension the word Aseem has been interpreted as ''A security'' by the learned District Forum. In our considered view it is quite evident from critical examination of the receipt and the circumstances of the case that Rs. 16,650/- have been charged by the College from ''Aseem'' as lumpsum payment for the admission to PGDCA course under the directions of Punjab University, Chandigarh issued vide letter No. 4201-4320/Misc./A-6, dated 6.5.2002. Thus, we are clearly of the view that the learned District Forum has gone wrong in holding this amount of Rs. 16,650/- as an amount charged towards ''A security'' i.e., Admission security and thus refundable being out of preview of page 23 of the College Prospectus, which inter alia mentions that ''Fee and other dues once paid shall not be refunded.'' The impugned order is thus flawed. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed lacking in merit. The parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.