Tripura

West Tripura

CC/26/2016

Smt. Payel Saha. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Techno India & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Saha.

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 26 of 2016

Smt. Payel Saha,
D/O- Sri Janardhan Saha,
Bimangarh, Agartala,
P.O. & P.S. Airport,
West Tripura.                ..…..…...Complainant.

                      VERSUS

1. Head office, Techno India (A Techno India Group),
Represented by its Managing Director,
Chatterjee International Centre, 12th Floor 33 A,
Jawaharlal Neheru Road, Kolkata- 700071,
West Bengal, India. 

2. Techno India Corporate Office,(A Techno India Group),
Represented by its Managing Director,
EM-4/2, Sector-V,Salt Lake,
Kolkata- 700091, West Bengal, India.

3. Techno India Agartala, (A Techno India Group),
Represented by its Managing Director,
Maheshkhola, Agartala- 799004,
West Tripura.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Shaikat Saha,
                          Advocate.

For the O.P.     1 & 3             : Sri Manabendra Chakraborty,
                      Advocate.

    JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:    14.09.2016

J U D G M E N T

        This case arises on the petition filed by Payel Saha U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that she visited the college of Techno India and deposited Rs.5000/- fee for admission to the B. Tech course. O.P. Techno India authority requested her father to deposit Rs.5000/- admission fee, Rs.20,000/- for Semistar fee Rs.43,000/- through demand draft. Accordingly, the amount was deposited along with Rs.300/-. O.P. Techno India issued the money receipt for total amount of Rs.68,700/-. Before commencement of the course petitioner and her father informed that she had got chance to study  at Tripura Institute of Technology and decided to study there. On 14.08.15 father of the petitioner sent a letter to O.P. No.3, Managing Director  of Techno India, Maheshkhala, informing about withdrawal of admission. Thereafter petitioner and her father requested to Techno India authority to refund the amount deposited. But the O.P. refused to pay the same. So, this case is filed for getting redress for refund of the amount.

2.            O.P. Techno India, institute for study of engineering course  appeared and filed W.S. denying the claim. It is stated that the petitioner did not inform them about the withdrawal of study course before the date of commencement of the course. New academic session began from August 14, 2015. No information given before that date for withdrawing the admission. Petitioner and her father requested O.P. No.3 to refund the deposited amount Rs.63,700/-. No verbal request was made before 14th August, 2015. As per guideline of Supreme Court no student should be admitted after 15th August in any quota. So, the seat remains vacant. Petitioner therefore, is not entitled to get refund as claimed. 

3.            On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
             (I) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the amount and any other relief?

4.             Petitioner side produced the copy of prospectus, money receipt, fee structure, copy of letter dated 14.08.15, copy of public notice issued by AICT, Exhibit- 1 Series.
         Petitioner side also produced statement on affidavit of two witnesses, Payel Saha, P.W.1 and Janardhan Saha, P.W.2.

5.         O.P. on the other hand produced statement on affidavit of Kishore Roy, Principal of Techno India as D.W.1.
         Also produced the attendance register, allotment verification, self-declaration, Pre-admission declaration, admission form, notice for new academic session, public notice of AICT Exhibit- A Series.

6.         On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

 

             Findings and decision;

7.         We have gone through the notification for counselling for students qualified through Tripura Board of Joint Examination issued by Chairman Admission Committee, Techno India, Agartala. From the perusal of the Notification Exhibit-A series, it is found that total 1600 students appeared for counseling. There were 5 branches-Civil, Computer Science, Electronics and Communication, Electrical and Mechanical. Total seat 270 was available for the purpose of admission. 54 seats was allotted for each branch. O.P. Techno India, Agartala did not mention about the preparation of any waiting list for admission. But when 1600 student attended the counseling it may be presumed that definitely there was waiting list for admission into the Institute in any of the 5 branches. Petitioner was allotted in Electrical  Branch. Self declaration was given by her father. Pre-admission declaration was also given. After that the demand draft was deposited in favour of Techno India, Agartala. One certificate was issued by Principal to support that new academic session is to begin from 14th August 2015. Petitioner in writing  informed Techno India, Agartala Branch that she should not study in their institute. From the postal receipt it is found that letter was sent on 14.08.15. The letter is sent after 14.08.15 definitely it reached to the hand of the Techno India Authority after 2/3 days of the beginning of academic session on 14.08.15.

8.                 We have gone through the prospectus. Nothing mentioned in the prospectus about the date of beginning of new academic session. Contention of the O.P. is that as the information for withdrawing the admission was given after 14th August 2015 after starting of academic session, so the seat could not be filled up. In this regard it is pointed out that as per guideline no students should be admitted in any institute after the last date in any quota. Last date was 15th August. Admission under any quota can not be filled up after 15th August. But nowhere it is stated that student can not be admitted from the waiting list. In MVJ College of Engineering Vrs. Tukaram Rao published in 2009(4) CPJ 247: 2009/(1) CLT 154 the National Commission held that as per decision of NCERT University  Branch Commission every institute and universities in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of the students/candidates. In the event of student/candidates withdrawing before the starting of the course waiting listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. It is also stated that when the student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled up by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly hostel rent as applicable. We have gone through the AICT guideline  in respect of refund of fees. As per that guideline public notice endorsed fee was less than 1000 will be refunded before the date of start of academic session. Secondly - fees less than seat cancellation charges on prodata basis should be refunded but request received after beginning of academic session when the seat is to be filled up by institute before the cut off date cant be refunded. 

9.             Here in this case moot question is whether the seat could be filled up by institute before the cut off date on 15.08.2015 and another question is whether actually it was filled up or not. To find out this matter we have gone through the attendance register as produced by Techno India, O.P. No.2. It is for the Chemistry subject. Total students were shown 68 including complainant, Payel Saha. It is found that Prasanjit Acharjee did not attend a single class along with Payel Saha, Debarijit Bodyapadhya,  Deepjyoti Debnath. One Monojit Sarkar firstly joined the class on 17.09.15 along with Soham Chakraborty. One Namrata Sinha joined on 23.09.15, while Sabuj Das firstly attended on 28.09.15 and one Chinmoy Chakraborty firstly attended on 31.09.15. From the scrutiny of the attendance register it is found that role no. 65-68 joined in the class after long time and admission may be after 14th August. O.P. only stated that the seat could not filled up, but nothing produced to support that there was bar to fill up the seat from the waiting list as total number of candidates was 1600. Definitely waiting list was prepared. Principal of the Institute in the statement on affidavit stated that one month time was given to the complainant for admission to the college. On receipt of admission name of the complainant was duly recorded in the admission register. After starting of the academic session seat could not be filled up and no refund can be given except security deposit. He stated that 15th August was cut off date as per guideline for admission under any quota. But in this case information of withdrawing the admission is given on 14th August which is supposed to reach by 17th August at least. From the admission register it is found that after 14th August class was held. Then taken on 24.08.15 after 10 days class taken. 15th August was holiday. Complainant and her father in their statement on affidavit stated that Payel Saha did not attend a single class in the college. They verbally requested the authority to refund the amount. Verbal request was turned down. Then written request was given on 14.08.15. No answer was given by Techno India Authority. 

10.             We have considered the evidence of both side and the documents furnished. We have also gone through written argument as furnished  by both the parties. It is stated that money once paid is not refundable. This is one sided version of the Techno India. For admission process and other expenditure Rs.5000/- was paid and we consider that it is not refundable. We also consider that 20,000/- paid as admission fee also not refundable. From the careful scrutiny before us it is found that actually in the vacant post of 4 students who did not attend the class was filled up later after starting of the academic session. So, in our opinion the refund of the amount Rs.43,000/- paid through demand draft should be refunded by the Techno India authority, Agartala. After getting chance in the Tripura Institute of Technology there  is a possibility that some students might leave this institution. Techno India should have given a chance to the successful candidates and refund the amount paid by them by way of demand draft. We therefore, of the considered view that the amount paid Rs.43,000/- by demand draft as semistar fee and other matters should be refunded as no service was provided  in respect of education to the petitioner. Thus, the point is decided in favour of the petitioner.

 11.            In view of our above findings over the point we direct the O.P. Techno India and other O.P. No.1 and 3 to refund Rs.43,000/- to the petitioner, Payel Saha as it was taken out without any proper authority, without providing any service. No cost is allowed and parties are to bear their own cost. We direct the O.P. to refund the same within 2 months,  if it is not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. 
    
                     Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA
    .