PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH vs DEEPIKA MOHAN

-THIS appeal has been directed by opposite parties against order dated 8. 8. 2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which the complaint of respondent Ms. Deepika Mohan (complainant) was accepted with costs of Rs. 2,500 and the appellants were directed to pay interest @ 9% p. a. on the amount of Rs. 46,266 already refunded from 1. 12. 2002, after the expiry of three months from the date of surrendering the seat in August, 2002, till repayment of the said amount, to refund Rs. 15,422 along with interest @ 9% from 1. 12. 2002 till the date of payment.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Ms. Deepika Mohan, respondent (complainant) had got admission to Bachelor of Engineering (Ist year course) in the Communication and Information Technology Branch on 7. 7. 2002 with the university Institute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh (appellant No. 2 ). She had deposited an amount of Rs. 61,688 with the appellants on the same day vide receipt Annexure C-1. However, later on she was admitted in the Electrical Branch of Bachelor of Engineering (1st year) in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh on 30. 7. 2002. The charges/tuition fee at the Punjab Engineering College were much lower as she was required to pay only Rs. 1. 02 lacs in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh instead of Rs. 4 lacs which she was required to pay in the Telecommunication and Information Technology Branch at Punjab University. Since, there was difference in the tuition fee of nearly three times, so, she opted to join Punjab Engineering College and surrendered her paid seat in the Punjab University. It was next averred that she moved an application for refund of fee deposited by her at the time of her admission but the appellants did not refund fee despite surrendering her seat in August, 2002. She made several representations and gave reminders time and again including the reminder given in August, 2003 and ultimately on 29. 10. 2003 an amount of Rs. 46,266 was refunded while the balance amount of Rs. 15,422 was not refunded and was retained by appellants. The copy of the letter to this effect is Annexure C-3. Thus, the appellants retained the tuition fee paid by her for more than a year despite the fact that she had surrendered the seat and was occupied by another candidate and did not remain vacant. Later on it was informed to her vide letter Annexure C-4 by Punjab University, Chandigarh that 25% of the admission fee had been retained as per decision of the Syndicate. However, she had challenged the retention of 25% of the total fee being illegal on the ground that Syndicate had not mentioned in the prospectus that if a candidate left after admission, then 25% would be retained as per decision of the Syndicate. It was not further mentioned in the prospectus that 25% of the total fee deposited at the time of admission would be retained if candidate left after taking admission and seat is allotted to another candidate.

Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

APPELLANTS contested the complaint and stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part as they had already refunded Rs. 46,266 to the respondent in accordance with the decision of the Syndicate dated 17. 3. 2003 and further the respondent was not a consumer. They next stated that in the handbook of information and rules for admission, 2002, it had been expressly provided under the heading "general Important Notes" which was at page No. (i) point (v) that the fee once paid at the time of admission to any course shall not be refunded under any circumstances except in the case of refundable security or where explicitly specified and further at page 35 under the heading ''notes'' the rule regarding refund of tuition fee had been provided. On merits, they admitted that the respondent got admission in the Communication and Information Technology Branch on 7. 7. 2002 and deposited a sum of Rs. 61,688 with them on the same day against receipt Annexure C-1 and thereafter she was admitted in the Electrical Branch of Bachelor of Engineering (1st year) in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh on 30. 7. 2002 and the respondent had moved an application for refund of the fee and stated that she had voluntarily surrendered her paid seat. They further stated that delay in refund of fee occurred due to procedure and process followed by the university which was taken as per decision of the Syndicate and payment was made by cheque to the respondent on 17. 12. 2002. They next stated that appellant No. 1 was fully competent and had authority to frame its rules and regulations from time-to-time through its Syndicate and Senate and there was no illegality and irregularity in these rules and as such there was no deficiency on their part, so, complaint should be dismissed. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

AFTER hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 8. 8. 2007 accepted the complaint with costs and passed the order as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties have filed the present appeal. We have heard Counsel for appellants Mr. Varun Katyal, Counsel for respondent Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj and carefully gone through the file.

IT is an admitted fact that respondent (complainant) got admission in the Communication and Information Technology Branch of appellant No. 2 on 7. 7. 2002 and deposited an amount of Rs. 61,688 on the same day against receipt Annexure C-1. Later on she was admitted in the Electrical Branch of Bachelor of Engineering (1st year) in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh on 30. 7. 2002 and she moved an application for refund of fee after voluntarily surrendering her paid seat. There is no dispute about it that the seat vacated by respondent (complainant) had been filled by another candidate and no loss had been caused to the appellants if respondent had vacated the paid seat. Annexure C-2 dated 23. 8. 2002 is the application addressed by Ms. Deepika Mohan to the Director, University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh in which she had stated that she had taken admission in BE 1st year course in the Telecommunication and Information Technology Branch (Paid Seat) on 7. 7. 2002 but subsequently on 30. 7. 2002 she was admitted in Electrical Branch of B. E. 1st year in Punjab Engineering College. She had further stated that considering the fact that Punjab Engineering College is an old and established Institute of Engineering courses and that she would have to pay Rs. 4 lacs for the paid seat offered by the University Institute of Engineering and Technology and in the Punjab Engineering College she would have to pay Rs. 1. 2 lacs and thus had preferred the seat of Punjab Engineering College. The reason to surrender the seat had been well explained.

ANNEXURE C-3 letter of University which is at page 16 of the file dated 29. 10. 2003 shows that as per decision of the syndicate dated 6. 7. 2002, the fee of Rs. 46,266 had been refunded on surrendering the seat out of an amount of Rs. 61,688 paid by her as tuition fee, etc while taking admission to BE (Telecommunication and Information Technology ). The letter dated 22. 1. 2003 whose photocopy is Annexure C-4 issued by the Registrar, Punjab University, Chandigarh bearing No. 1446/a regarding refund of balance amount of Rs. 15,442 reads as under: "memo: kindly refer to her application dated 20. 1. 2003 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor on the subject cited above. She is informed that her admission fee has been refunded after deducting 25% of the total amount keeping in view the Syndicate decision dated 6. 7. 2002 vide para 34 reads as under-''that fees and funds once paid by a candidate for admission to self-financing courses in the University Institute of Engineering and Technology be refunded on vacating the seat by deducting 25% of total amount paid as administrative charges if seats so vacated get filled up. '' sd/-Asstt. Registrar (Accounts-II)for Registrar"

Therefore, the syndicate had taken decision dated 6. 7. 2002 which is reflected in para No. 34 that fees and funds once paid by a candidate for admission to self-financing courses in the University Institute of Engineering and Technology be refunded on vacating the seat by deducting 25% of total amount as administrative charges, if seat so vacated got filled up. Hence, according to this letter the syndicate had taken decision on 6. 7. 2002 to refund the amount deposited by a candidate for admission to self-financing course in the University Institute of Engineering and Technology after deducting 25% of the total amount paid as administrative charges if seat vacated is filled by another candidate. The very fact that syndicate had taken decision on 6. 7. 2002 with respect to refund of fee paid by a candidate for admission to self-financing courses in the University Institute of Engineering and Technology shows that no rule or regulation existed earlier regarding refund of admission fee, etc. paid by a candidate for admission to self-financing courses in the University Institute of Engineering and Technology. Perhaps this institute had come into existence recently and as such there was no previous decision of the syndicate.

THERE is also no evidence that it was mentioned in the prospectus or in any other catalogue regarding admission to self-financing courses in the University Institute of Engineering and Technology that if a candidate voluntarily left the seat which was filled up by another candidate then only 75% of the total amount was to be refunded and 25% was to be deducted as administrative charges. The copy of the letter Annexure R-1 shows that the decision of Syndicate dated 6. 7. 2002 was forwarded for information and necessary action to the Chairperson of Chemical Engineering and Technology, FDO and O. S. Regulations only on 9. 7. 2002. Therefore, the candidates could only know about the decision of the syndicate on 9. 7. 2002 or thereafter when it was put on the notice board and brought to the notice of the public or published in some Gazette of the university. The respondent on 7. 7. 2002 when she took admission in the Institute of Engineering and Technology did not know that if she voluntarily left the seat which later on is filled up by another candidate then fee, etc. deposited by her would not be refunded in toto and 25% would be deducted as administrative charges. At best the decision which was taken by the syndicate on 6. 7. 2002 could be made applicable to the candidates who got admission or deposited fee after 9. 7. 2002 or thereafter and not to the candidates who took admission and deposited fee prior to 9. 7. 2002. Thus, deduction of 25% as administrative charges amounting to Rs. 15,422 was illegal. Counsel for appellants has placed reliance upon following authorities to butter his point that the university was within its right to deduct 25% as administrative charges: (i) Ramdeobaba Engineering College v. Sushant Yuvraj Rode and Anr. , III (1994) CPJ 160 (NC)=1995 (1) CPC 184. (ii) Dr. Rabinder Nath v. Principal, S. B. Patil Institute for Dental Sciences and Research and Ors. , III (2002) CPJ 232 (NC), decided on 25. 10. 2002 in R. P. No. 1743 of 2001 by Hon''ble National Commission. (iii) K. Siva Prasad v. Correspondent, Smt. Y. Krishna Veni Rao, I (2004) CPJ 20, F. A. No. 612 of 1998 decided on 11. 12. 2002 by Hon''ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission. (iv) International Institute of Information and Technology and Ors. v. Sumer Singh, I (2004) CPJ 522, Hon''ble U. T. State Commission. (v) Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh v. Miss Gunita Virk, I (1996) CPJ 37 (NC ). (vi) Ms. Swati Aneja v. Dev Samaj College for Women and Anr. , IV (2003) CPJ 120=2 (2002) CPC 497, Hon''ble U. T. State Commission. (vii) The Punjab University and Anr. v. Akshat Jain, Appeal No. 637 of 2006 decided on 28. 9. 2006 by Hon''ble U. T. State Commission.

THE above mentioned authorities are not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the above mentioned authorities refund of fee was not allowed or was partly allowed in view of the rules and regulations of the concerned institution but in the present case as is reflected in the decision of syndicate dated 6. 7. 2002 there was no earlier rules and regulations existing concerning admission to self financing courses in the University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh and for the first time the syndicate had taken decision on 6. 7. 2002 in para 34 which was conveyed to the department on 9. 7. 2002. The handbook of information and rules for admission 2002 under the heading ''general important notes'' was not applicable to the refund of admission fee paid by a candidate for admission to self-financing course like in University institute of Engineering and Technology and this was precisely the reason that matter was put up before syndicate and syndicate on 6. 7. 2002 took the decision to deduct 25% of total fee as administrative charges if a candidate vacates seat after admission and further seat is filled up by another candidate. In case of Punjab University v. Akshat Jain in appeal No. 637 of 2006 decided by us on 28. 9. 2006 we have held that there was no deficiency on the part of University Institute of Legal Studies and candidate was not entitled to refund of amount as non-refund of balance amount was not deficiency in service because Akshat Jain had taken admission in the five years integrated course in LL. B. (Honours) in the University Institute of Legal Studies, Punjab University for the Academic Session 2005-2006 under general category and deposited Rs. 69,410 as tuition fee, etc. on 3. 8. 2005. The university later on refunded Rs. 45,000 after deducting 10% out of refundable tuition fee of Rs. 50,000 but did not refund balance amount of Rs. 18,410. This was done on the basis of decision of the senate which was held in the meeting dated 12. 10. 2003 i. e. much prior to the taking of admission by Sh. Akshat Jain. In para 61 sub-rule (1) it was stated that in case the seat vacated by a candidate was filled by granting admission to another candidate, then fee was to be refunded to the candidate after deducting 10% of the tuition fee and development charges as administrative charges. Therefore, on the basis of this decision of senate we held that there was no deficiency in service. In the present case non-refund of the remaining fee is deficiency in service on the part of appellant by stating that 25% had been deducted as administrative charges. The institute was not to deduct any amount as service charges as service which was to be rendered to the student in the matter of pursuing of studies in the institute after admission had not been rendered as the candidate had withdrawn from the institute. The authority which was decided by us titled as Jasleen Kaur v. A. K. Vidhya Mandir Pvt. Ltd. , IV (2005) CPJ 458 is also not applicable because in the above said authority the candidate had attended the classes for 7 days and had left the course midway voluntarily and further contradictions were found in her statement, so, it was held that candidate was not entitled to the refund of fee of Rs. 15,70,019. In International Institute of Information and Technology and Others v. Sumer Singh (supra), which was also decided by this Commission refund was not allowed by the Commission as per terms of the brochure which could not be changed or amended by Consumer Fora. It has been observed by the State Consumer Commission, Pondicherry in Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute and Anr. v. Sabari Priya, III (2006) CPJ 233, that if the candidate had left the college on her own accord and the vacated seat subsequently was filled up by another candidate, if OP retained fee and refunded only a part then it amounted to deficiency in service as OP has not suffered any loss or injury due to vacation of the seat. Similarly it has been held so by the Delhi State Consumer Commission in Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University v. Ashok Kumar Jain, II (2006) CPJ 398.

THEREFORE, in view of the discussion above, we hold that non-refund of remaining amount amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of appellants and as such there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000

COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.