M V J COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING vs TUKARAM RAO

-ISSUE involved in this case is whether the student who has paid full fees for studying in an Engineering College for one year can be deprived of the refund of the fees even when he has not attended the classes for a single day and sought refund of the fees to pursue the studies elsewhere.

FACTS of the case in brief are : Complainant Tukaram Rao had admitted his son Bharat Kumar in M. V. J. College of Engineering (for short ''college'') for studying B. E. (Telecom) on 16. 7. 2007 by paying Rs. 1,95,000. As Bharat Kumar had appeared for CET Examination conducted by the Government of Karnataka and secured a seat under general merit and was directed to join Ghousia College of Engineering, Ramanagaram, he requested for refund of fees. The request for the refund of amount by the College did not elicit any positive response. Therefore a complaint was filed before the District Forum. This was contested by the college authorities quoting the declaration signed by the parent stating that while paying the fees he will not claim the refund of the amount paid to the institution in connection with the admission even though the candidate withdraws his candidature at any point of time, etc. District Forum after going through the records of the case and hearing the parties directed the refund of Rs. 1,25,000 to the complainant within 15 days of the order failing which to pay an interest at 10% p. a. from the date of the order till the date of payment. The College was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000 towards cost of litigation.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the College filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission observed that University Grants Commission has issued a circular to all educational institutions to refund the money in the event the candidate secures admission through CET in some other college. In this case, the complainant''s son had not attended classes for a single day hence the appeal was dismissed by the State Commission. Hence, the College has filed the revision petition before us.

WE have gone through the records of the case and heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The complainant has clearly stated that he had paid Rs. 70,000 in cash and Rs. 1,25,000 through Demand Draft drawn in favour of college. It is a well known practice that many private educational institutions are collecting the part of the fees in cash without issuing any receipt for the same. The District Forum has ordered the refund of only the amount paid through Demand Draft which has been confirmed by the State Commission. Some educational institutions which are not covered under CET start admission process much ahead of CET admissions knowing fully well that the bright students will leave their institutions once they are selected under CET process. This clearly is an unfair trade practice. Such unfair trade practice indulged by the several education institutions had come to the notice of the University Grants Commission which was constrained to issue a public notice dated 23. 4. 2007 which is reproduced below in extenso: "1. It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission that Institutions and Universities including institutions deemed to be universities are admitting students to various programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students; and, retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original. The Institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates.

The Commission is of the view that the Institutions/universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the Institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdraw-ing before the starting of the course, the waitlisted candi-dates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1,000 (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/university to the student/candidate withdraw-ing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.

The Universities/institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The UGC, shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions.

Institutions/universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them.

FURTHER, Secretary of the University Grants Commission has written letter to the Vice-Chancellor, Visveswaraiah Technological University, second paragraph of which reads as follows: "it has come to the notice of the Commission that some institutions are not following the instructions contained in the public notice referred to above. The Commission has received several complaints in this regard from different quarters and has taken a serious view of this. The universities/institutions are, therefore, once again requested to comply with the instructions issued by the UGC, failing which the Commission will be constrained to take punitive action against the erring institutions under the prescribed relevant Rules/regulations/guidelines. "

In view of the above, we do not see any merit in this revision petition. Hence it deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed as such. Despite committing deficiency in service the college authorities continue to litigate up to the level of National Commission. Therefore, we direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000 as cost which shall be credited to the Consumer Legal Aid account maintained by this Commission. Petitioner is granted 4 week time to comply with the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission and also the order regarding the payment of cost. Revision Petition dismissed.