K.C. Gupta, President:
1. This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 24.3.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby her complaint for refund of fee amount was not allowed and was filed and she was directed to seek remedy before the Civil Court, as admissible under law.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant (complainant) is resident of Faridkot. She approached the respondent for getting coaching for PMT classes for the examination to be held in 2003. She had deposited Rs. 12,000 in cash on 17.1.2003 as tuition fee and Rs. 3,700 as hostel fee while taking admission in the said institute. It was next averred that the respondent had assured her that the institute had got competent faculty members, whereas on joining the institute, she found that faculty members were unqualified and were recruited on daily basis. She attended the classes for a few days and found that the faculty members were not up to the mark. She approached the respondent for providing her with a list of faculty members along with their qualification, but it failed to supply the same and even refused to refund the fee deposited by her. She again contacted the respondent on 2.1.2005 for getting refund but all in vain and even legal notice was also served upon it.
3. With these allegations, the complaint for refund of Rs. 15,700 was filed.
4. Summons were sent to the respondent through courier agency but it refused to accept service and the service was considered sufficient and since, it did not appear, so, it was proceeded against ex parte on 21.2.2005.
5. The appellant produced on file her affidavit besides documents by way of evidence.
6. After hearing Counsel for the appellant, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh, filed the complaint by stating that since it did not have jurisdiction to declare any rules in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal, so, it did not have jurisdiction to order refund of the amount. It further directed the appellant to approach the Civil Court.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard Mr. B.P.S. Dhaliwal, Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vineet Sharma, Counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the file.
9. The appellant has stated in her affidavit that she had approached the respondent for getting coaching for PMT classes for the examination to be held in 2003. She next stated that she was misled by the assurance of the respondent that it had competent staff but after attending classes for a few days, she found that faculty members were not up to the mark and when she asked the respondent to provide her a list of faculty members and their qualification, it refused to supply the same and on her request, it also refused to refund the fee, etc. She next stated that she had deposited Rs. 12,000 as tuition fee and Rs. 3,700 as hostel expenses with the respondent on 17.1.2003 and started attending the classes for getting coaching for the PMT examination. Therefore, according to the version of the appellant, as stated in the affidavit, she had attended the classes for 2-3 days.
10. Counsel for the respondent contended that the fee once deposited was not refundable under any circumstances. For this contention, he has brought to our notice condition regarding mode of payment as mentioned in the information brochure of A.K. Vidyamandir. The said mode of payment reads as under:
âStudents are advised to pay fee in cash/Bank Draft/Money Order or local cheques in favour of âA.K. Vidyamandir payable at Chandigarh. Fee mentioned above is payable by the students in advance and is non-refundable and non-transferable under any circumstances, if once the admission is granted. Late fee of Rs. 50 per day will be charged if dues are not submitted by the due date.â
11. Rule 7 of the Rules and Regulations of the brochure also states that fee once paid would not be refunded under any circumstances. Therefore, when both these conditions i.e., Rule 7 of the Rules and Regulations and âmode of payment are read together, then one thing is very clear that fee once paid is not refundable under any circumstances. The mere fact that the appellant did not attend the classes for remaining period of the course in which she had taken admission in the institute, is no criteria for the refund of fee deposited by her. It is her own fault in not attending the classes run by the institute for the course in which she took admission. The appellant cannot take any advantage of her own wrong. It is not the case that she had left the classes due to some unavoidable circumstances. It is well settled principle that the terms and conditions of the brochure are binding on the candidate as well as the institute. Reference may be made to the authorities of this State Commission - International Institute of Information and Technology and Others v. Shri Sumer Singh, I (2004) CPJ 522=2004 (1) CPC 383, and Subash Chander  v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and Others, 1997 (3) Recent Service Judgment 346.
12. It is further stated by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh  v. Miss. Gunita Virk, I (1996) CPJ 37 (NC), that the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as unconscionable or illegal and it is for the Civil Court to determine this issue.
13. It has also been held by the National Commission in Ramdeobaba Engineering College v. Sushant Yuvraj Rode and Another, III (1994) CPJ 160 (NC), that where the respondent/complainant withdrew from the college to join another institute voluntarily, in that event, there was no deficiency in service on the part of Engineering College. Non-refund of admission fee is not a deficiency in service. Admission fee is a consideration for admission and the service which the Engineering College is to render to the student in the matter of his pursuing studies in the college is after admission.
14. Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was an average student as her marks in 10+2 examination were low and she was not able to follow the lectures being an average student and it was only possible for her to follow the lectures from a well trained and experienced faculty but on the other hand, the respondent had engaged only part time and on daily wages, fresh graduate persons, and as such failed to pick up her studies and could not cope with the higher and competitive standard of studies of the institute. In our view this contention of learned Counsel for appellant is not tenable. She had obtained 68% marks in 12th Class which shows that she was not an average student. Moreover, she has not stated in her affidavit that she was an average student and for this reason she could not follow the lectures delivered in the class. On the other hand, she has alleged that the faculty members were unqualified and were recruited on daily basis. Thus, according to averments in the complaint, the faculty members were not well qualified and as such were not competent to deliver lectures. In reply to the notice of the appellant, the respondent through Counsel (vide reply dated 8.2.2004) had stated that the institute was top ranking institute having dedicated and expert faculty and a number of students from this institute have excelled in seeking admission to the prestigious institutes of the country and the appellant never approached the institute for providing a list of the faculty members as the faculty had the bio-data of all the members regarding experience and calibre of the teaching staff. The appellant had not stated any genuine cause for abandoning the institute.
15. In one case student was allowed refund of fee where it was found that it was unjust, irrational and illegal for the institute to retain the fee because it was found that there were numerous private Engineering Colleges and the students are required to apply for more than one college and pay fee in more than one college and ultimately got cancelled their admission in other colleges except one college. It was further held that if for genuine reasons, the student got cancelled the admission, then he is entitled to refund of tuition fee. The authorities in Dr. Alexander Education Foundation and Another v. B. Chandra Sekaran, I (1995) CPJ 141=1 (1995) CPC (58-62) Pondicherry; The Principal, Maharishi Veds Vigyan Mahavidyala Women College v. P. Sankar Rao, 1 (1995) CPC (57-58) Andhra Pradesh, are not applicable to the facts of the present case as she had withdrawn from the institute voluntarily without any reason or genuine cause.
16. In P. Sankar Raos case daughter of the complainant was admitted to the school and she had paid the necessary fee but later on, she got admission in another school, before the admission was closed in Maharishi Veda Vigyan Mahavidyala Womens College and applied for transfer certificate and refund of the fee. It was held that since admissions were not finalized by that time and the institute did not display any list, so, it was liable to refund the amount and mere clause in the prospectus that no amount will be refunded had been introduced to benefit the management of the school.
17. In B. Chandrasekarans case, complainants daughter got admission in B. Pharma course and paid fees and donation but it was found that the institute was not affiliated with the Pondicherry University and the affiliation had become inoperative when the students were asked to join the course. Consequently, it was held that the request of the complainant for refund of fee was genuine.
18. Counsel for the appellant also contended that the respondent cannot indulge in unjust enrichment at the cost of the appellant. In our opinion, it is not question of unjust enrichment at the cost of appellant but it is a question of principle. The appellant had attended the classes for three days and then left the course midway voluntarily without any apparent cause. In the complaint, it is stated that the staff was unqualified but it was argued before the State Commission that the appellant being an average student could not follow the lectures and as such left the institute. Both things are contradictory. The only conclusion is that she had left the institute voluntarily, without any reasonable cause and as such is not entitled to the refund of fee of institute as well as hostel.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge.