7

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM HOSHIARPUR.


C.C.No, 310/4.11.2008

Decided on 03.03.2009

Gurdawar Singh aged 56 years son of Achhar Singh resident of village Pandori Nijjran Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.



Complainant


vs.



1.

J.R.Govt. Polytechnic College, Hoshiarpur through its Principal Smt Rachna Kaur.
2.

Smt Rachna Kaur, Principal, J.R.Govt. Polytechnic College, Hoshiarpur.


Opposite parties

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.


Quorum: Sh.P.D.Goel,President,

Sh.A.S.Jauhar,Member.


Present; Sh Shakti Singh, counsel for the complainant.

Sh Surinderpal Singh, authorized agent of the OPs.


PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.

The complainant namely Gurdawar Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act.”. In short,the facts of the case are that the OPs made an advertisement in “Ajit” Newspaper dated 12.9.2008 inviting the applications from general public for the degree course in “ D Pharmacy” having requisite qualification. That in response to the said advertisement, the daughter of the complainant, who was possessing the requisite qualification for the said course made an application on 16.9.2008. The OPs declared the result and directed the selected candidates to deposit the requisite fee i.e. Rs.2500/- for counseling and Rs.34,696/- for course.
2.

It is further averred that as per directions of the OPs, the complainant deposited Rs, 37,196/- ( Rs.2500/- for counseling and Rs.34,696/- fee for course) and in token thereof, the OPs issued receipt for the sum of Rs.34,696/-. However, the OPs despite of the request made by the complainant failed to issue receipt for Rs.2500/-, charged as counseling fee. That the session for the said course started in July,2008. It is further averred that the candidates, who could not apply earlier for one reason or the other had the option to apply for the said course alongwith late fee.
3.

It is the allegation of the complainant that on 17.9.2008, he made an enquiry with regard to extra coaching to the students to cover the syllabus from July,2008 to September,2008. The OPs informed that it is for the students to make their own separate arrangements,thus, daughter of the complainant decided not to join the course and made a request to the OPs to refund the fee of Rs.37,196/-. That as per guidelines/ instructions contained in the prospectus, the students, who have deposited the fee and had not joined the course had a vested right to get the fee refunded. Since the OPs refused to refund the amount of Rs.37,196/-, hence this complaint.
4.

OPs filed the joint reply. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that OP No.1 is a Govt. institution. The graduation in B.Pharmacy in the said college has been running under Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and the course in question is approved by All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi. However, it is admitted that an advertisement dated 12.9.2008 was made to fill the vacant seats of B.Pharmacy. It is also admitted that the complainant's daughter got admitted in the above said course and Rs. 37,196/- were deposited by the complainant. It is further replied that as per PTU norms, the admission to B.Pharmacy is given on the basis of CET (Combined Entrance Test) through its centralized counseling . The vacant seats were to be filled by the college as per PTU guidelines. The complainant's daughter was admitted against vacant seat through direct admission without charging any late fee. The complainant alongwith his daughter visited OP No.1 on 16.9.2008. It is also admitted that complainant also applied for refund of the fee on the very next day, stating that due to unavoidable circumstances, the daughter of the complainant was leaving the seat and requested for refund of the amount of Rs.37,196/-.
5.

It is further replied that daughter of the complainant was already a student of the B.Pharmacy at C.T.College of Pharmacy, Shahpur (Jalandhar) but the said fact was concealed by the complainant and his daughter at the time of filling up the form for admission.
6.

It is further replied that the complainant applied for refund of the fee through application dated 17.9.2008. However, as per norms of All India Council for Technical Education/ Punjab Technical University , it is not possible for the college to refund the fee . According to Fee Refund Rules, the entire fee collected from the student after deduction of the processing fee of Rs.1,000/- is to be refunded to the student, withdrawing from the programme, provided the seat consequently, falling vacant has been filled by the other candidate on the waiting list by the last date of admission. It is further replied that the seat vacated by the daughter of the complainant is still lying vacant , as such, the refund has not been allowed as the same is not covered under the instructions..
7.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex C-1, receipt dated 16.9.2008 Ex. C-2, receipt of Rs.4000/- Ex.C-3, receipt of Rs.8196/- Ex. C-4 and newspaper clipping Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence.
8.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Rachna Ex. OP-1, copy of information brochure Mark OP-2, advertisement Mark OP-3, copy of application form Mark OP-4, letter dated 24.10.2008 Mark OP-5, receipt dated 24.10.2008 of Rs.27,500/- Mark OP-6, list of students admitted through direct admission Mark OP-7, copy of letter dated 20.9.2008 Mark OP-8 and copy of letter dated 2.1.2009 Mark OP-9 and closed the evidence,
9.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
10.

The other facts are admitted. The only point which calls decision from this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled or had a legal right to get the refund of the fee? The answer to this is in the negative.
11.

The OPs have replied that as per norms of All India Council for Technical Education/ Punjab Technical University , it is not possible for the OPs to refund the fee as the entire fee collected from the student after deduction of the processing fee of Rs.1,000/- is to be refunded to the student, withdrawing from the programme, provided the seat consequently, falling vacant has been filled by the other candidate on the waiting list by the last date of admission. The OPs have also raised the plea that the seat vacated by the daughter of the complainant is still lying vacant , as such, the refund has not been allowed as the same is not covered under the instructions..
12.

For the purpose of convenience, the rule 10(b)- refund rules of Ex.OP-2 is reproduced as under:

“The entire fee collected from the student after deduction of the processing fee of Rs.1,000/- shall be refunded and returned to the student/candidate , withdrawing from the programme, provided the seat consequently, falling vacant has been filled by the other candidate on the waiting list by the last date of admission. “
13.

Now it is clear that the complainant can ask for the withdrawal of fee if the seat vacated by his daughter stands filled by the other candidate on the waiting list by the last date of admission. The complainant has not produced any evidence on the file to prove that the seat vacated by his daughter had been filled by other candidate. The OPs have filed the affidavit of Smt Rachna, Principal of the OP Ex.OP-1 in support of the reply. It is not the case of the complainant that the seat vacated by his daughter had been filled by the other candidate on the waiting list . Since it has been specifically provided qua Ex. OP-2- refund rules that the fee is refundable only if the seat vacated by the candidate had been filled by the other candidate on the waiting list by the last date of admission. The said plea is supported by the affidavit of OP- Ex.OP-1 In the present case, the OPs have successfully proved on record that the seat vacated by the daughter of the complainant is still lying vacant, therefore,we are of the opinion that as per condition contained vide refund rules-10(b) of Ex.OP-2, the complainant is not entitled for the refund of fee.
14.

As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, with the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.

Announced.

03.03.2009

(A.S.Jauhar) (P.D.Goel)

Member President