STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

UIET through its Director, Panjab University, Chandigarh.

                                                                                 …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

Apurv Singhal son of Sh. Dr.Surinder K Singhal, resident of House No.3108, GMCH Campus, Sector 48-D, Chandigarh                                                                                                                     ...Respondent

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 24.08.2022 passed by       District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.240/2021.

 BEFORE:     MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.RAJESH K.ARYA, MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:    Mr.Arun K.Bakshi,  Advocate for the appellant.

                       Mr. Devinder Kumar,Advocate  for the respondent.

                       Mr.Rajinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for Principal (Decree Wing)                       Chandigarh College of Engineering & Technology                                    (CCET),Sector-26,Chandigarh.

PER  PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                     This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.08.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh          (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/240/2021 in the following terms;

1. To refund the amount of ₹38,000/- to the complainant, after deducting ₹2,000/- (40000 – 2000) towards non-refundable registration cum counselling fee from the total fee paid by him, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 9.8.2018 till realization.

2.        to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3.  to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation

                         This order has been directed to be  complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of the receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it was made to  pay the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

  2.        Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was  case of the complainant/respondent that  on 8.8.2018, he applied for spot round admission to the Opposite Party/appellant vide JEE Roll No.13406428/Application No.80058275 by paying participation fee of ₹40,000/- and the final seat was supposed to be confirmed by the appellant  on 12.8.2018. However, on 9.8.2018, the complainant got a confirmation call for admission in  Chitkara Engineering College, Banur. Accordingly, on the same day  an email was sent to the Joint Admission Committee (JAC) by the mother of the complainant opting out of the spot round and requested for refund. On 12.8.2018, when the complainant checked the website of the Opposite Party, he was surprised  to know that  the seat was allotted to him in Engineering College, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The complainant then  sent an email on 12.8.2018 followed by representation dated 11.10.2018 praying for refund, but to no effect. The Opposite Party vide communication  dated 15.10.2018 advised the complainant to contact the allotted institute regarding  the refund of fee which was to process the refund case as per its institute rules mentioned on Page No.53 of JAC-2018 information brochure. When complainant approached the said institute, it directed the complainant to approach the Opposite Party as the fee was deposited with it.  However, despite protracted correspondence/emails as well as personal visits by the father of the complainant, the Opposite Party failed to refund the amount. Alleging  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.

3.                      The Opposite Party/appellant in its  written reply before the Ld. Lower Commission  admitted that the complainant/respondent  participated in the admission process by depositing participation fee. The admission website was managed by National Informatics Centre (NIC), New Delhi, for the entire admission process. However, to assist the candidates, helpline contact number and helpline email id were also made available on admission website and on the information brochure of JAC 2018.  During  spot round, the respondent was allotted a seat in CCET, Sector 26, Chandigarh, as per admission rules. It was further stated that  the participation fee was not paid to the appellant, but, to Joint Admission Committee 2018, which was transferred to CCET, Sector 26, Chandigarh on 13.9.2018. As the complainant was allotted a seat, he had no claim for refund of participation fee from JAC 2018. It was further stated that  once the admission process was over, the JAC for that year, ceased to have any control over any of the seats in any of the participating institutes. Maintainability of the consumer complaint before the Consumer Fora was questioned and pleaded that  there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. 

 4.                    On appraisal of the pleadings, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission allowed the Complaint of  Respondent / Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.    

5.            Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party.

6.                       We have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties, Sh.Rajinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the Principal, CCET, Sector-26, Chandigarh, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.                      The core question that falls for consideration before us, is as to whether, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

8.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed   for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

9.                      At the time of admission of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire fee was received by the Joint Admission Committee (JAC) constituted for the purpose, and consequent upon allotment of seat to the respondent, the fee was deposited with the Chandigarh College of Engineering & Technology(CCET), Sector-26, Chandigarh. In this view of the matter, notice of appeal was ordered to be issued to the Principal(Degree Wing), CCET, Sector-26, Chandigarh, with a direction to produce all the relevant record with regard to the admission and deposit of fee by the respondent. In its reply,  it was stated that 248 students were admitted in the year 2018 in the CCET, Sector-26, Chandigarh, through JAC 2018. These students deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- each as participation fee with Joint Admission Committee-2018. On 13.8.2018, the said committee transferred the amount of Rs.99,20,000/- to CCET. On 18.9.2018, out of the said amount of Rs.99,20,000/- , an amount of Rs.63,48,000/-was deposited in Government Treasury vide Treasury Challan Annexure R-OP2 and  a sum of Rs.18,60,000/- vide Challan Annexure R-OP3. It was further stated that as per its record, 17 students failed to join the institute after completion of admission process and  office order dated 5.10.2018 was passed to refund the requisite amount as per rules of the brochure to the left out students. Only 11 students applied for refund as per rules and the amount was accordingly refunded to them. It was further stated that the complainant has not applied for refund of the amount as per procedure laid down under the rules and as mentioned in the brochure. It was further stated that the  amount is still pending with the CCET which will be paid to the complainant as and when he will apply for refund of this amount, as per rules and procedure.

10.            There is no denying the fact that the respondent paid the amount of Rs.40,000/- for the purpose of spot round counselling and that on 9..8.2018, an email was sent opting out of the admission process as he had got admission in another institute of his choice. However, despite receiving information from the respondent regarding his refusal to participate in the admission process, he was admitted on 12.8.2018 and offered a seat.  The Ld. Lower Commission rightly observed that it was duty of the appellant and the concerned institute  to have taken action on the request of the respondent vide which he had opted out of the spot round counseling, well before allocation of seat to him and requested for refund of fee. Instead of paying any attention towards his request, appellant admitted him in CCET whereas he has already got a confirmation call for admission in another college of his choice. As stated in the reply, the amount is lying with CCET, Sector-26, Chandigarh, and the appellant was organizing institute at that time with its Director as the Chairperson of the Joint Admission Committee 2018. As the respondent did not opt to take seat in the CCET, Sector-26, Chandigarh and requested for refund of the amount, the same was required to be refunded but no action was taken by the institute and the respondent has to litigate for seeking refund of his amount. 

11.                     No other point was urged by the Counsel for the   Appellant.

12.                      In view of the above discussion, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed.

13.                      The  present Appeal being dismissed, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

14.                       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15.                       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.