MANDSAUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Vs. AKSHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 2 Society runs an engineering college with the name of Mandsaur Institute of Technology (MIT), which is petitioner no. 1 herein at Mandsaur. Respondent took admission in petitioner-1 institution in a 4 - Year B. E. Mechanical Course in July 2003. Having passed his first year's exams, the respondent was promoted to second year in July 2004 and hence on 29.7.2004 he deposited Rs. 35,580/- as fees in advance for the second year. However in the meantime, the respondent had also applied for transfer and admission in second year B. E. course in another Institution, namely, Institute of Engineering and Technology at Indore. Intimation for his admission to the Institute at Indore was received by the respondent on 20.8.2004 whereupon he applied for NOC/Leaving Certificate from the petitioner's Institution. The petitioner insisted for payment of the entire fees for the remaining two years, i. e. , for the 3rd and 4th year amounting to Rs. 71,160/-, besides registration fee of Rs. 650/-. It was only on the respondent depositing the fees insisted by the petitioner's Institution that the petitioners granted NOC to him. Feeling aggrieved by this action on the part of the petitioners, the respondent approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint claiming refund of the entire fees charged from him in July and August 2004 by the petitioners. This complaint was resisted by the petitioners/OPs mainly on the ground that the OPs were entitled to charge the fees for the entire course even if a student leaves the Institution in midstream because according to them the seat would remain vacant for the remaining period of the course causing financial loss to the OP Institution. The District Forum over-ruled the contention of the OPs and held that OPs had committed deficiency of service by charging fees of the course for 2nd, 3rd and 4th year from the respondent/complainant because against this fees no education has been imparted to the complainant by the OPs. The District Forum, therefore, directed the OPs to return the fee of Rs. 35,580/- for the 2nd year, Rs. 71,160/- fees for the 3rd and 4th year and college registration fee of Rs. 650/- charged again from the complainant. Thus the total amount of Rs. 1,07,390/- which had been received from the complainant was directed to be returned to him. The District Forum also asked the OPs to pay interest @ 8% from 27.8.2004 till the money was returned along with cost of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the petitioners carried the same before the M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal ('State Commission' for short) in appeal which the State Commission partly allowed by holding that the respondent/complainant was not entitled to get refund of the fees amounting to Rs. 35,580/- deposited by him for the 2nd year course on 29.7.2004. Similarly the college registration fee of Rs. 650/- was also not held as refundable by the petitioners to the respondent. To this extent, the appeal of the OPs/petitioners was allowed and the order of the District Forum was modified. Rest of the order of the District Forum was kept unaltered and upheld. Not feeling satisfied with this impugned order dated 26.6.2007 passed by the State Commission, the petitioners have challenged the same through the present revision petition.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondent cannot be allowed to leave the course joined by him in midstream because the petitioner's Institution would incur loss by his seat remaining vacant during the remaining period of the course. It is stated that no student came to be admitted after the departure of the respondent and his seat remained vacant during the remaining period. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2003 AIR(SC) 3724 wherein the Apex Court has recognized rights of private institutions to charge fees for the entire course and required a student leaving the institutions in midstream to pay the fees for the remaining period. However, the counsel admitted that no bond/bank guarantee had been taken in the present case from the respondent to the effect that the balance fee for the whole course would received by the petitioner's Institute even if the respondent left in the midstream. Clarifying the position in this regard, it was contended by the counsel that no such bond was taken from the respondent because the petitioners did not have any such apprehension and hence this should not come in the way of the petitioners retaining fees for the remaining period of the course in question. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent chose to shift to a better institution and there is no bar against changing the institution. However, when the petitioners insisted on making payment of the fees for the entire period, the respondent had no option but to deposit the same to get the NOC but this action on the part of the petitioners was illegal and amounted to deficiency in service on their part since the respondent was made to pay fees for the period when he would not be availing of the services by way of pursuing education in the petitioner's Institution. According to his information five students had been admitted by the petitioner's Institution after the exit of the respondent and hence the seat of the respondent could not be regarded to have remained vacant. In any case, learned counsel contended that since admittedly no bond/bank guarantee had been given by the respondent to the petitioner's Institution against leaving the petitioner's Institution in midstream, the ratio laid down in the Islamic Academy's case by the Apex Court will not apply to the present case. He submitted that citation in question has been fully considered by the State Commission while passing the impugned order, which does not suffer from any legal infirmity and hence deserves to be upheld by dismissing the present revision petition which is devoid of any merit.

(3.) We have gone through the record and the orders of the fora below. In the absence of bond/bank guarantee in the present case, the petitioner's Institution cannot derive any benefit from the ratio of Islamic Academy's case which has been duly considered by the State Commission in para 4 of its impugned order. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission, which is in line with the judgement of the Apex Court. Part relief already given by the State Commission to the petitioner's Institution was appropriate and justified in the given facts and circumstances. There is, however, no case for further relief. The revision petition being devoid of any merit, therefore, is liable for dismissal and is dismissed accordingly but with no order as to costs.