Decided on August 03,2010

Ggs College Of Modern Technology Appellant
Kusum Arora Respondents


S.N.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT - (1.)AKSHAY Arora son of Kusum Arora, respondent had attended the counselling conducted by the Dean (Academics) Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar (impleaded in the complaint but not impleaded in the appeal) (in short ˜PTU) after depositing an amount of Rs.10,000 on 31.7.2007. He was allotted appellant College where he deposited an amount of Rs.51,368 on 6.8.2007 vide Receipt No.8501. The respondent asked for the cancellation of admission of her son on 8.9.2007 and also sought refund of the money deposited by her. She also sent reminders. However the amount was not refunded to her on which she filed the complaint for the refund of the money. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
(2.)PUNJAB Technical University, opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum filed the written statement. It was not denied that the son of respondent had taken admission in the appellant College and had deposited an amount of Rs.51,368. However, he was entitled to the refund only under the rules and regulations.
(3.)IT was pleaded that as per Rule 18 of Part A of CET -2007 Prospectus, the candidate was liable to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000 in PTU out of which Rs.2,500 were to be retained by PTU and the remaining amount of Rs.7,500 was to be sent to the College where the student was to take admission. The matter of refund of fee etc. is covered in Part -B of CET 2007 Prospectus sub -rule (b) which says that the initial deposit of Rs.7,500 was not refundable and was to be adjusted in the third semester if the student continued to study in the allotted college and branch upto 3rd semester. Since the candidate did not join the appellant College, therefore, the amount of Rs.7,500 stood forfeited. As per sub -rule (d) of Rule 8 of CET2007 Prospectus, tuition fee and other charges paid by the candidates were refundable after deducting 10% of the tuition fee of the first semester only if the candidate had surrendered the seat with the appellant College in writing with a copy endorsed to Coordinator of CET2007 in the University by 7.8.2007. Rule 8 of the said Prospectus provided that no refund was admissible after the cut off date.
It was, however, pleaded that since the cancellation was sought by the candidate on 8.9.2007 i.e. one month after the expiry of cut off date, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the refund. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.