RAMDEOBABA ENGINEERING COLLEGE vs SUSHANT YUVRAJ RODE

THESE are cross revision petitions against the common order of 13th of August, 1993 passed by the State Commission of Maharashtra in Appeal No. 485 of 1992. By the said order, the State Commission has set aside the orders of the District Forum of 14th July, 1992 in Complaint No. 387 of 1991 by which the complaint was dismissed and allowed the appeal directing refund of Rs. 8,800/-to the respondent complainant towards fee and Rs. 2,000/- towards caution money deposit with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 3.7.1990 onwards. A sum of Rs. 500/- was also allowed as costs in the appeal.

THE relevant facts briefly are that the respondent complainant Shri Sushant Yuvraj Rode obtained provisional admission to the 1st year of Engineering in the Ramdeobaba Engineering College on 10th July, 1990. On admission, he paid the admission fee of Rs. 8,800/-and security deposit of Rs. 2,000/-. On the 8th September, 1990, the complainant secured admission in another College Laxmi Narain Institute of Technology on payment of Rs. 689/-. In consequence, he requested the revision petitioner Engineering College to refund the fee and the security deposit paid by him on 10th July, 1990. While the revision petitioner College was prepared to refund the caution money, it was not agreeble to refund the admission fee of Rs. 8,800/-on the ground that under the orders of the Government of Maharashtra promulgated in September, 1988 "where a student leaves the institution and applies for refund of the fees after 30 days from the date of admission, no fee is to be refunded". The State Commission, however, held that the Principal of the revision petitioner College had promised on 3rd July, 1990 that the fee would be refunded in full on production of evidence of the respondent complainant having subsequently obtained admission in Engineering College through the agency of the Government of Maharashtra. The State Commission has also noticed the contention of the respondent complainant that the revision petitioner College did not render any service after his withdrawal from the College and that the seat of the respondent complainant did not remain vacant as the same was filled up by the admission of another student. This is a case where there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering College. The respondent complainant Shri Rode withdrew from the College to join another institute voluntarily and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioner Engineering College. Non-refund of admission fee is not a deficiency in service. Admission fee is a consideration for admission and the service which the Engineering College was to render to the student in the matter of his pursuing studies in the college after admission. It is a quid pro quo for such service.

WE , therefore, find that there has been a wrongful exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission resulting in material irregularity. Revision Petition No. 558 is allowed and Revision Petition No. 594 is dismissed; the order of the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. There is no order as to costs.