TRUSTEE, SHREE SWAMINARAYAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY vs PRAVINABEN J. UPADHYAYA

THIS appeal arises from order dated 20.5.2003 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gandhinagar in Complaint No. 3/2003 directing the opponent Institute to refund the admission fee of Rs. 23,750/- recovered from the complainant''s daughter with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment, compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- on the head of mental agony and hardship and cost in the sum of Rs. 500/-.

IT was the complainant''s case before the learned Forum that as her daughter wanted to further her studies in MCA, she applied for admission through Central Admission Committee. In the process of admission, opponent Institute offered admission to complainant''s daughter and, therefore, she deposited Rs. 23,750/- as per the particulars set out in the complaint. Reshuffling programme was undertaken thereafter. That resulted into the complainant''s daughter getting admission in the same course in Shri Chimanbhai Patel College, Ahmedabad. Complainant''s daughter Nidhi had, therefore, to join that college. This resulted into some other student getting admission on the seat of the complainant''s daughter insofar as opponent Institute was concerned. The complainant, therefore, represented for refund of fees and other charges recovered by the opponent. As she did not get refund of fees, she approached the learned Forum with prayer of refund of fees with interest and compensation. The opponent Institute resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the fees were not refundable. After considering the material placed on record, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to refund of the fees particularly when the seat falling vacant on account of complainant''s daughter getting admission in another Institute was filled in by another student and the opponent Institute was not at loss in any manner. This resulted into passing of the impugned order. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. We have gone through the impugned order. In our considered opinion, the complainant would be entitled to refund of the amount of fees and other charges paid by her for the admission of her daughter in the opponent Institute. This Commission had an occasion to deal with a problem akin to the problem in the present case in Appeal No. 114 of 2003 between Jagrut Nagrik and Jayesh C. Vipradas v. The Vice Chancellor and The Registrar, Sardar Patel University, decided on 1.9.2003. There, we had observed that educational institutions are not commercial institutions and they do not thrive upon profiteering from the fees collected from the students. Retention of the amount of fees and other charges collected by the opponent in the aforesaid circumstances would clearly amount to deficiency in service. We also had an occasion to observe that even if it is treated as a case of breach of contract, although it is not so stricto sensu, the opponent would not be entitled to retain the amount as it would amount to penalty and not reasonable compensation. While making said observations, we have borne in mind the provisions of Section 74 of the Contract Act. In our considered opinion these observations would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. As a matter of fact, the present case stands on a better footing inasmuch as admission which the complainant''s daughter got was as per the process of Central Admission Committee and it was only in the reshuffling that the complainant''s daughter was required to undergo change of educational institution. Besides, in the present case also the opponent Institute got another student from whom all the fees and charges were collected.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we find no merit in the present appeal except in respect of compensation on the head of mental agony and hardship. In our considered opinion that amount will not be available to the complainant as observed in the aforesaid case decided by this Commission. In view of what is stated above, following order is required to be passed. ORDER Impugned order dated 20.5.2003 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gandhinagar in Complaint No. 3/2003 is hereby maintained except with regard to compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- which is hereby set aside. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed, with no further order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.