Rajiv Gandhi College Of Engineering And Technology vs A RADHAKRISHNAN

THE opposite parties are the appellants.

THE respondents/complainants have filed the complaint raising the following contentions. The first complainant is the father of the 2nd complainant. The 2nd complainant has completed her diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering and she applied for the lateral entry, II Year Electronics Communication Engineering course at opposite party college during the academic year 2002 -03. The 2nd complainant got admission and she paid Rs. 56,700 towards tuition fee and caution deposit, etc. The 2nd complainant joined the course on 29.7.2002. On 5.9.2002, the 2nd complainant got a seat in the Pondicherry Engineering College and, therefore, the complainants requested the opposite party to return the certificates and refund Rs. 51,700 deducting Rs. 5,000 having attended the course for one month. The opposite parties directed the complainants to collect the above amount after a period of three months i.e., after completion of admission. Inspite of demands made by the complainants on several occasions, the opposite parties failed to refund the amount. Therefore, the complainants issued notice on 19.5.2003. The opposite parties have neglected and failed to repay the amount inspite of repeated demands. For mental agony suffered by the complainants, they are entitled to Rs. 5,000 as compensation. Hence, the complaint is filed. The case of the opposite party is as follows: The complainant after admission in Pondicherry Engineering College, approached the college for refund of fees paid by them and they were appraised with the rules and regulations of the institution laid down in the prospectus. In the prospectus, it is clearly stated that any amount paid towards tuition fee, admission fee will not be refunded. The complainants also agreed as per the application form for admission that they are bound by the rules and regulations and that they will not claim compensation or refund of fees. The 2nd complainant joined the course on 19.7.2002 under the Management Quota and she continued her studies till 5.9.2002. The complainants were fully aware of the terms and conditions which were explained to them and given in the application form and prospectus before admission. The admission for the year was over well in time and hence the management could not fill up the seat falling vacant subsequently in Electronics and Communication Engineering for the academic year 2002 -03 for which there is a very great demand. The college is collecting only the Government prescribed fees.

NO oral evidence was let in by the parties. Exs. C1 to C4 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exs. R1 and R2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

ON consideration of documents and materials, the District Forum has held that the complainants are consumers and that the opposite parties retained the amount without rendering any service to the complainant. The District Forum on the above ground directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 40,000 and pay Rs. 1,000 towards compensation and Rs. 1,000 towards cost. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have come forward with this appeal. The points for determination are: (1). Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? (2). Whether the complainants are entitled to refund of fees and compensation?

POINT No. 1 : It is not in dispute that the 2nd complainant, the daughter of the 1st complainant, joined the opposite parties institution on 29.7.2002 and that she left the college on 5.9.1992 to join Pondicherry Engineering College. Ex. C1 is the Admission Card issued to the 2nd complainant on 19.7.2002 which would show that the 2nd complainant was admitted in the opposite parties institution. Ex. C2 is the expenditure statement which would show that a sum of Rs. 56,700 is payable at the time of admission. It is not in dispute that the 2nd complainant got a seat in Pondicherry Engineering College and that she left the opposite parties college. Ex. C3 is the notice issued by the complainants to the opposite parties demanding them to refund the amount of Rs. 51,700 out of Rs. 56,700

THE District Forum has held that the opposite parties are liable to refund the unutilised amount deducting the fees for service rendered to the complainant. The opposite parties inter alia contend that as per the prospectus of the college, the admission fee paid by the students will not be refunded. In Ex. R1 (Clause 8) it is stated that any amount paid towards tuition fee, admission fee and any other fee will not be refunded. The opposite parties also relied upon the undertaking given by the applicant in Ex. R2 whereunder the applicants have promised not to claim compensation or refund of fees. Relying upon the documents, it is contended by the opposite parties that the complainants are not entitled to refund of the admission fee especially, when the 2nd complainant voluntarily left the college to join another college. To substantiate the above plea, the learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties relies upon certain decisions. In Shri Ramdeobaba Engineering College v. Sushant Yuvraj Rode and Another, III (1994) CPJ 160 (NC)=IX 1994 (3) CPR NC 194, it is held that when the complainant withdrew from the college to join another institution voluntarily, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that the admission fee is a consideration for admission. It is also contended by the appellant that the complainants claim is not based upon deficiency in service and that, therefore, the complaint is not cognizable by the Consumer Forum. In support of the said contention, the appellants rely upon a decision reported in Narasimha Rao v. K.R. Neelakanda and Another, I (1994) CPJ 160 (NC)=1994 (1) CPR 459 (NC). The District Forum relies upon a decision reported in Apeejay School and Another v. M.K. Sangal and Others, I (1993) CPJ 9=1993 (2) CPR State Commission Delhi 62. In the above decision, the Delhi State Commission relies upon a judgment of Supreme Court reported in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath, AIR 1986 SC 1571. It is contended by the appellants that the judgment of the Supreme Court and Delhi State Commission will not apply to this case as the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court relates to contract of public employment and that the clause in the prospectus that admission fee will not be refunded cannot be challenged in the Consumer Forum. To substantiate the above contention, the learned Counsel for the appellants relies upon a judgment of National Commission reported in Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh v. Gunita Virk, I (1996) CPJ 37 (NC), wherein it is held that the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus as unconscionable or illegal and that it is for a Civil Court to determine this point. The National Commission has also held that if a student apply for an admission and deposit the fee and later on do not want to join the course then the seat to vacated will remain vacant through out the academic year and in such circumstances, it will become very difficult for any institution to run in a proper manner. The Delhi State Commission in Chakradhar Semwal v. Navjot Singh Waraich and Another, III (2000) CPJ 457 (Delhi), relying upon the judgment of National Commission in Homeopathic Medical College has held that Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus as illegal and that the remedy of the complainant is only to approach the Civil Court for relief. In Ms. Rama Sinha v. Ms. Jyotika Gupta, IV (2003) CPJ 500=2004 (7) CLD 746, State Commission, Chandigarh has also held that if a student after satisfying the above institute deposit fee, he cannot ask for refund in contravention of specific provision of prospectus barring such refund. In view of the judgment of the National Commission it is not open to the Consumer Forum to declare any rule or clause contained in the prospectus as illegal. But the above decision will not assist the case of the appellants. The question whether the student, who paid the fees is entitled to refund of fee when the student voluntarily left the institution would depend upon the facts and circumstances of particular case. In this case, it is admitted by the opposite party that the seat which fell vacant when the complainant left he college is filled up with another candidate. The District Forum has also recorded a finding to that effect and has held that by the said act of the complainant the opposite parties institution would have faced inconvenience but not any monetary loss since the seat has been filled up by another student. The Delhi State Commission in the case reported in Administrator, Sardar Patel Vidyalaya v. Dr. Anurag Rohatgi, III (2004) CPJ 183=2004 (9) CLD 264, has held that where a student withdraws admission from an institution, full amount of admission fee is to be refunded specially where the vacant seat had been subsequently filled. As the seat vacated by the 2nd complainant had been filled up by admitting another candidate, the opposite parties institution did not suffer any monetary loss. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the State Commission, Delhi in the above decision. The opposite parties failed to refund the unutilised amount even after the issue of notice, Ex. C3. It is significant to note that no reply was issued by the opposite parties to the above notice, Ex. C3. Therefore, it has to be held that non -refund of unutilised amount especially when the seat vacated by the 2nd complainant had been filled up by another candidate would certainly amount to deficiency in service. In the above circumstances, the findings rendered by the District Forum in directing the opposite parties to refund unutilised amount cannot be said to be vitiated by any infirmity.

THE District Forum has awarded only Rs. 1,000 towards compensation. The said quantum cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, we hold that the District Forum is justified in directing the opposite parties to refund the unutilised amount. We hold that there are no merits in the appeal.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum is confirmed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.