G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 16.5.2005 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to "the Commission") vide which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed while upholding order dated 16.3.2005 (Annexure P/3) passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to "the Forum").
(2.) The Commission came to the conclusion that in view of Regulation 9(iii) of Prospectus issued by the respondent-University, the petitioner was not entitled for the refund of fee of L 10,000/-. It was accordingly held that since the candidate having been admitted in first round of counselling had not reported to the college and therefore, initial deposit stands forfeited as per the above said Regulation.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in view of Clause 7.3 (a) of the Prospectus every candidate selected for admission was required to deposit the said amount which had been duly deposited. Thereafter after deducting the processing fee the balance amount was to be remitted to the institution and to be refunded finally to the candidate in question. The Clause 7.3 (a) of the Prospectus reads as under:- "Each candidate selected for admission, after counselling, will be required to deposit a sum of L 10,000/- failing which the admission shall stand cancelled. After deducting the processing fee of L 2500/-, the balance amount shall be remitted to the institution to which the candidate is admitted finally for refund to the candidate." A complaint before the Forum was thus filed on the ground of deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said complaint was dismissed by the Forum on the ground that the petitioner had voluntarily decided not to join the college and there was no evidence that the seat had been filled up. The amount stood forfeited and therefore in view of the specific clause in the Prospectus, the complainant was not entitled for the refund of fee. ;