SANDEEP RAJA GOYAL Vs. CHAMAN VATIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant- Master Sandeep Raja Goyal through his guardian Shri S. P. Goyal has filed a complaint before District Forum, Ambala, for refund of the amounts deposited by him with the respondent at the time of seeking admission to the School at Ambala City. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.52,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the brochure and prospectus issued by the respondent, but decided to withdraw from the School after staying there for only three weeks. It was, therefore, claimed by the appellant before the District Forum that he should be refunded the remaining amount after deducting the fee etc. for those three weeks as he had paid the full amount for the whole year. However, after going through the evidence and arguments of the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to refund of only Rs.5,000/- deposited as security and Rs.7,000/- in respect of expenses to be incurred for payment to the appellant during his stay in the hostel. Therefore, a refund of Rs.12,000/- was ordered by the District Forum and the respondent was held to be entitled to retain the remaining amount as per the terms and conditions of the admission to the School.

(2.) In the appeal virtually the same arguments have been reiterated by the learned Counsel for the appellant. He has stated that the School had recovered in advance the full amount in respect of board and lodging of the appellant in the school for the whole year, where's he used the facility only for three weeks. Therefore, the remaining amount, which was meant for pro- viding facilities like food, laundry, stay and other amenities to him and which amount would not be now spent by the respondent-institution should be got refunded to him. The learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that as per the prospectus issued by the respondent as well as the receipt by which the amount of Rs.52,000/- was acknowledged, the appellant had clearly given an undertaking that the amount deposited by him not be refunded to him except as provided by the school rules. In the present case whatsoever was to be refunded to the appellant has already been given to him and he is not entitled to anything more as he has expressly undertaken not to claim any refund at the time of seeking admission. As the matter in this case is fully covered by the recent decision of the Hon'ble National Commission, we need not dwell at length on the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties. In the case of Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh V/s. Miss Gunita Virk, 1996 1 CPJ 37, it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to declare any rule in the prospectus of any institution as un- conscionable or illegal. It is for the Civil Court to determine this point. In view of the above binding precedent of the Hon'ble National Commission, we cannot go into the question of equity and the respondent retaining the amount even though it is unlikely to incur any expenditure out of the said amount. Since this point cannot be adjudicated in the Consumer jurisdiction, we have no option but to dismiss the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.