At, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. O.P. GUPTA
For the Appearing Parties: ----------
1. Being dis-satisfied with order dated 23.09.14 passed by District Forum in CC no.306/11 allowing the complaint and directing OP to pay Rs.51,700/- towards refund of fees, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony, Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation, the OP has preferred present appeal. It was further directed that in case the OP failed to comply with the order within one month from receipt of copy of order, it would pay interest @15% p.a. of Rs.51,700/- w.e.f. 02.09.08 till realisation.
2. The facts which can be gathered with the impugned order which that complainant/ respondent paid Rs.52,700/- and took admission in B.Tech with the OP/ appellant. Class were scheduled to start w.e.f.22.09.08 but due to some person reasons complainant did not join the classes and opted for withdrawal of the admission. He sent a letter dated 02.09.08, he was called in the office on 04.09.08 and original documents were returned to him. He was asked to furnish application for withdrawal on the prescribed performa which he did. He did not receive the fees. He made correspondence with the OP, All India Council of Technical Education, Kurukshtra University. Para-4 (b)(1) provides one of ordinance XXII of refund/ regulations for refund/ adjustment of the fees provide that if a candidate leaves before commencement of classes, entire fee is refundable after deducting Rs.1,000/- only. The OP falsely denied receipt of application for withdrawal of admission prior to October, 2010.
3. OP filed WS pleading that complainant never submitted timely withdrawal of application. Rule 4 (iii) stipulated that in a self financing courses, refund will be allowed only if seat so vacated is filled by the last date of admission. He was sent a letter on 08.011.10 advising him to approach the OP alongwith proof that he had applied for withdrawal admission in September, 2008. The complainant did not reply nor approached the college authorities with proof of withdrawal.
4. After filing WS the OP was proceeded exparte. Complainant filed his own affidavit in evidence.
5. The District Forum found that OP may not mention about return of original documents as stated by the complainant which amounts to admission. The same lans support to the plea of the complainant that he applied for withdrawal of admission on 02.09.08, Copy of the application dated 02.09.08 was placed on record and has been marked as market-A for the purpose of identification. Hence the impugned order was passed.
6. In appeal the grievance of the OP is that college was situated outside the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
7. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments advanced by counsel for respondent / complainant. Counsel for appellant/ OP did not appear for addressing arguments. So far as objection of territorial jurisdiction is concern, it may be mention that though the District Forum has not dealt with the said objection yet the same is not texted the reason being that address of Managing Society of the appellant in Suraj Park, Building Industrial Area, Delhi . That is sufficient to confer jurisdiction of the District Forum in Delhi.
8. On merits I find that appellant never pleaded that the seat vacated by the respondent / complainant remained vacant. Hence the role relied upon by the appellant does not come to its rescue.
9. There is nothing wrong in directing refund of the fees. However compensation of Rs.50,000/- for non refund of fees of Rs.51,700/- is extremely excessive and cannot be
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
sustained. 10. Appeal is accepted in part, impugned order is modified to the effect that appellant would return Rs.51,700/- with interest @10% p.a. from 02.09.08 to till date of refund. 11. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost. 12. One copy of the order sent to District Forum for information. 13. File be consigned to record room.