IITT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING Vs. MANOHAR SINGH WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 19.4.2000 in Complaint Case No. 321 of 1998 instituted on 12.11.1998 : Sh. Manohar Singh Walia v. The College of Engineering and Another.

(2.) Briefly the averments made in the complaint are that son of the complainant named Sh. Gaurav Walia applied for admission in the Academic Session 1997-98 in Computer Engineering College of OPs along with the application. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 88,370 and Provisional Admission Card No. 52/ 9.10.1997 was issued by the Deputy Registrar (Academics) of the OP. The complainant was also required to pay an amount of Rs. 90,000 as security upto December 1997. However, the complainant approached the Principal of the OP College the same day and he was assured that the demand of the money was only a formality and the complainant will not be called upon to tender any such amount and an undertaking in writing was given in this regard. The complainant reluctantly allowed joining his son hostel at Panchkula on 13.10.1997. The son of the complainant joined the class only on 14.10.1997 but he was unable to attend the classes for 14.10.1997 to 18.10.1997 being unwell. On coming to know that his son was not keeping good health, the complainant called him from the hostel at Panchkula on 18.10.1997 but prior to this on 16.10.1997, the complainant submitted an application to the Chairperson (OP No. 2) intimating therein that the complainant is not interested to continue his son for studies in College and sought cancellation, of provisional admission of his son. The complainant also mentioned that the condition of furnishing security of Rs. 90,000 by December 1997 is uncalled for and he sought refund of the entire amount deposited by him. The OPs kept the matter guessing for a considerable long time and in the meantime, fill up the vacant seat by collecting all necessary dues from the successor student. The complainant has alleged that since no loss has accrued to the OPs, he is legally entitled to have refund of the entire amount. However, the complainant s son received a cheque of Rs. 7,545 only towards refund of part payment of the deposit made by the complainant. The OPs vide their communication dated 26.8.1998 intimated the complainant that a cheque dated 4.3.1998 for Rs. 66,925 was dispatched to him on 7.3.1998 and advised him to file an indemnity bond for issuance of a fresh cheque in case he had not received the cheque in question. The complainant furnished the indemnity bond sought by the OPs but the OPs have not refunded the balance amount on one pretext or the other. Aggrieved by this conduct of the OPs, the complaint has been filed seeking payment of Rs. 1,25,825 along with interest @18% per annum from 9.10.1997 till realisation under the following heads: (i) Principal amount withheld Rs. 80,825.00 (ii) Interest @ 18% from 9.10.97 till date of realisation. Rs. 30,000.00 (iii) Mental agony Rs. 10,000.00 (iv) Misc. expenses incurred on Regd. AD, telephonic consultation and personal visits etc. Rs. 5,000.00

(3.) The version of the OPs is that Rs. 90,000 demanded from the son of the complainant were as per written condition regarding the deposit of security amount mentioned in the prospectus but the complainant s son did not deposit this mandatory security. It has also been stated that as per college prospectus for Academic Session 1997-98, fee once deposited will not be refunded under any circumstances. It was, however, admitted that the cheques of Rs. 7,545 and Rs. 66,925 were sent to the complainant towards refund of the non-refundable fee as a goodwill gesture on the suggestion made by the Regional Officer, AICTE and that the complainant was asked to furnish indemnity bond. It has been further stated that the bond furnished by the complainant contained certain deficiencies and, as such, it was returned for correction but the complainant again submitted the bond, which also contained some deficiencies and, as such, it was also returned to him for necessary corrections. In the meantime, the OPs came to know that the complainant is going to the Court and therefore, it was decided by the OPs to proceed strictly according to the terms and conditions laid down in the prospectus.