Judgment:
Kalidas Mukherjee, President
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Pargan as in CC 224, 225, 226 and 227 of 2012 allowing the complaints with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainants of each case. The OP was directed to refund the amount deposited by the Complainants after deducting Rs.1,000/- in each case. The OP was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainants of each case as compensation within 15 days from the date of passing order failing which an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue till the date of realisation.
The case of the respective Complainants, in short, is that they got admitted in the OP Institution for PGDM programme. The sum of Rs.1,10,400/- was deposited by each Complainant. Subsequently, they got opportunity of admission elsewhere to pursue MBA course and they sent letter to the College Authority for cancellation of admission and refund of money. It has been alleged in the petition of complaint that the College Authority rejected the letter by saying œIf you leave the college you will get no refund also your name will be blacklisted by AICTE and you will not be able to get an admission in any AICTE approved college in near future.? The Complainant went to the AICTE, Eastern Region and told them about the matter and wrote letters for the refund of money, but nothing was done.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the students got admitted in the Appellants Institution for MBA course and they wanted to withdraw from the said course. It is submitted that such prayer for cancellation of admission and refund of money could be made within 15 days but not thereafter. It is contended that the Respondents attended the classes and they wanted to withdraw as they got chances elsewhere. It is submitted that the entire money cannot be refunded as in the instant case the withdrawal of money was sought for after two months. It is contended that the Complainants are not consumers and the Dean of the Institution cannot be made a party in a case and the Respondents left the Institution of their own. The Learned Counsel has referred to the decisions reported in 2010 CTJ 354 (CP) (SCDRC) [Punjab Technical University and Anr. Vs. Anu Bala (minor) through her father]; 2010 CTJ 985 (SC) [Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur].
The Respondents in person submitted that on 15/06/11 the classes started but those classes were not approved by AICTE and there were only three professors/teachers in all. It is submitted that the cancellation letter was issued on 27/07/11 but it was accepted only after the appearance of the guardians. It is contended that on 23/08/11 the refund was denied. It is submitted that the Complainants attended classes for 3 to 5 days only.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to Clause-7 of the Terms and Conditions wherein it has been laid down that withdrawal from College on own volition could be allowed with refund of entire fees if it is made within 15 days of the commencement of classes. It has been held in the decision reported in IV (2010) CPJ 318 (NC) [Saravpreet Singh Vs. Lala Lajpat Rai Institute of Engineering and Technology, Moga and Anr.] that the deduction of processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- was permissible while refunding the amount of fees to the Complainant. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the Complainants got themselves admitted in the Appellant Institution and, subsequently, on getting opportunity elsewhere they prayed for cancellation of admission and refund of fees. There is no evidence to show that the seats which were allotted to the Respondents/Complainants remained vacant for the whole of the year and no other student was admitted in those places. The decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant having different factual aspects are not applicable in the instant case. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Learned District Forum was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order.
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment is affirmed.