ISABELLA THOBURN COLLEGE vs FATIMA EFFENDI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order passed on 16.11.1999 by District Consumer Forum, Lucknow (I), in Complaint Case No. 676 of 1998.

FACTS of the case, stated in brief, are as under : The complainant succeeded in B.Ed. Entrance Test conducted by Lucknow University as also by the appellant. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,080/- towards fee, on the request of the appellant. Thereafter the complainant opted to join B.Ed. Course of Lucknow University, being successful in the B.Ed. Entrance Test there also. It is also alleged that the complainant did not attend even a single class in the institution of the appellant. The complainant asked for refund of the fee, from the appellant, which was refused and hence this complaint. The opposite party has put in no appearance and did not contest the case inspite of sufficient service by registered post. The case proceeded ex-parte against it. The learned Forum after considering the case directed the appellant to refund Rs. 1,080/- alongwith interest @ 18% and Rs. 500/- as cost.

Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Forum, the appellant has come in the appeal challenging the correctness of the order passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow.

WE have heard learned Counsels for the two parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that on account of being successful in the entrance test, the complainant was allowed to deposit the admission fee and the admission fee cannot be refunded in accordance with the terms of the prospectus of the institution. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had to deposit the entrance fee by 3.7.1997. Later-on the complainant was also successful in the entrance lest conducted by Lucknow University. The complainant joined Lucknow University without attending even a single class in the institution of the appellant. According to the learned Counsel the amount should be refunded. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Abel hcheco Gracias v. Principal, Bharati Vidyapith College of Engg. In this case the appellant Abel Pacheco Gracias got admission in the Engineering College. He also deposited tuition fee, hostel fee and other dues with the college. He also appeared in the Joint Entrance Test ''md got admission in another college. He approached for refund of the fee deposited from the Principal, Bharati Vidyapith College of Engg. A sum of Rs. 2,364/- was only deposited as fee by the appellant. The complaint was lodged with the District Forum, Pune, which was rejected. Disagreeing with the judgment of the District Consumer Forum, Pune, the Maharashtra State Commission, after considering the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fee would not arise. As against this learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Shri Ramdeobaba Engineering College v. Sushant Yuvraj Rode & Anr., III (1994) CPJ 160 (NC). In this case admission was obtained by the respondents in the first year of Engineering and admission fee of Rs. 8,800/ - and the security fee/ deposit of Rs. 2,000/ -. This was done on 10.7.1990. On 8.9.1990, the respondents secured admission in another college and in consequence to this respondents applied for refund of the total amount from the petitioner. The petitioner was prepared to refund caution money but not the admission fee. Orders by Maharashtra State Commission were cited in this case. It was also on these facts that the National Commission observed that there is no deficiency in service on part of the Engineering College as the respondents themselves withdrew voluntarily to join another college. In such a case non-refund of admission fee is not a deficiency in service. It was further held that admission fee is consideration for admission and National Commission, therefore, allowed the petition. We are bound by this decision of the National Commission and in view of this decision, the complainant has no right to ask for the refund of the admission fee. Judgment and order of the learned Forum, therefore, cannot be sustained and the appeal is liable to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed and judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow, are set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no orders as to the cost. Let copies of the order be issued as per norms Appeal allowed.