INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION DISIGN Vs. PREETIKA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by opposite party is directed against the order dated 20.3.2009 whereby complaint case No. 1480 of 2008 filed by Ms. Preetika Sharma was allowed by District Consumer Forum -II, U.T. Chandigarh in the following terms:

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: The complainant on 11.7.2008 took admission in diploma course of Interior Design in the institute run by OP and paid a sum of Rs. 24,500 as fee. She had also appeared in a Common Entrance Test conducted for admission to engineering courses. On 30.6.2008 the complainant received information from the University to appear for Counselling to be held on 20.8.2008 and she was hopeful of getting admission in view of her rank in the common entrance test. Accordingly on 10.8.2007 she informed OP that she was hopeful of getting admission in the engineering course in B. Tech and she was not interested to continue her studies in the diploma course for which she had taken admission. She also requested OP for refund of the fee but despite her repeated requests the amount was not refunded. Hence, alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed.

(3.) OP appeared before the District Forum and filed written reply admitting the factual aspect of the case with regard to taking of admission by the complainant in Interior Design Diploma course by depositing fee of Rs. 24,500. However, it was stated by OP that the complainant had appeared for common entrance test for admission to engineering college. On 30.6.2008 she also came to know about her result and thereafter she received letter for counselling for 20.8.2008 but still she preferred to take admission in the institute of OP on 11.7.2008 and signed the declaration on 12.7.2008 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the fee once paid could not be refunded under any circumstances. It was pleaded by OP that the complainant left the course of her own sweet will because she got admission in another college, so, there was no deficiency in service on its part and complainant was not entitled to refund of any fee.