ABEL PACHECO GRACIAS Vs. PRINCIPAL BHARATI VIDYAPITH COLLEGE OF ENG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Pune dated 9.7.1990 passed in Complaint No. PDF/220/ 90. The facts in short are that the appellant's son David Hugo was admitted as a first year student in the College of Engineering of the opposite party at Pune. It appears that the complainant's son had deposited Rs.8,250/- towards the tuition and other fees at the time of his admission on 4.7.89. In addition to the aforesaid fees, David had also deposited the hostel fees amounting to Rs.8,875/-. David also appeared for the Joint Entrance Examination for the year 1989-90. It appears that David had secured the admission in the College of opposite party pending the result of his Joint Entrance Examination. The result of the Joint Entrance Examination was declared on 24.8.89 and being successful he got admission in the Government Engineering College at I. I. T. , Kharagpur. The complainant, therefore, approached the opposite party for the refund of college, and hostel fees paid by David. This refund application was made on 25.8.89. The Opposite party refunded the entire hostel fees but as against the deposited tuition fees of Rs.8,250/-, only an amount of Rs.2,364/- was refunded. No reasons for the refund of only Rs.2,364/- has been explained by the opposite party. Feeling aggrieved, therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bombay claiming back the entire balance of the tuition fees. The Bombay District Forum returned the complaint to the complainant stating that it had no jurisdiction. The complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum, Pune. The District Forum, Pune adopted the view that the application for the refund of tuition fee was not made within 15 days prior to the last date of admission to the Engineering College which was 31.8.1989. Reliance was placed on Rule 1 framed by the Director of Technical Education dated 27.9.1988. The Rule (1) provides that if a student wants to cancel his admission in the aided college or non-Government non aided college, the college should return the tuition fee of a student deducting 10% out of the tuition fees or Rs.100/- whichever is less. The Rule provides the deduction of 10% out of tuition fees only. The Rule does not provide for any other deduction from other deposits which a student pays at the time of his admission. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, therefore, the complainant filed this appeal. According to the appellant, the District Forum is wrong in its view to dismiss the complaint.

(2.) We have heard Shri A. M. Mascarennas from the Consumer Guidance Society of India for Appellant and Shri M. G. Lohudkar, Administrative Officer for the respondent.

(3.) According to appellant on the next day of the declaration of the result of the Joint Entrance Examination he applied for refund of fees and therefore, there was no delay to claim the refund of the tuition fees. It is true that the result of the Joint Entrance Examination was declared on 24.8.1989 and application for refund was made on 25.8.1989. Rule (1) dated 27.9.88 states that an application for the refund of fees has to be made 15 days prior to the last date of admission which in the present case was 31.8.1989. On the basis of the facts appearing in this case, we find that there was no delay on the part of appellant to approach for refund of the tuition fees. The appellant could not have approached for the refund before the declaration of Joint Extrance Examination result. Thus the 0possible delay in declaration of Joint Entrance Examination result was not taken into account while framing the aforesaid Rule. It is common knowledge that the admission to I. I. T. Engineering College is regarded as prestigious and students prefer it. While framing the rules, it is obvious that the contingency of late declaration of Joint Entrance Examination results was not taken care of by the Director of Technical Education. It is a well-known fact that in their anxiety to secure admission in professional colleges, students apply for admission in several institutions and deposit the necessary fees. It is also a matter of common experience that the educational institutions insist for the payment of entire annual fees as a condition precedent for admitting a student. The students deposit the entire fee for the whole session in order to secure the admission. He has no choice. At the same time students appear for the Joint Entrance Examination. If a student qualifies in the Joint Entrance Examination, he prefers to join the I. I. T. and gets his admission cancelled which he has secured by way of abundent caution. Under these circumstances, if the tuition fees are not refunded as a consequence of cancellation of admission, the parents of students will have to suffer loss of thousands of rupees in their anxiety to secure the admission to their wards in professional colleges. We are aware that there have to be rules and procedures for admissions but we cannot close our eyes to the consumer aspect that these rules have to be reasonable, just, realistic and rational. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the student cancelled his admission in a casual manner. It is not even the case of respondent that he cancelled it for joining any other private college. He cancelled his admission in the Pune College because he was successful in the Joint Entrance Examination for admission to I. I. T. , Kharagpur. It is very significant, material and important that the result of the Joint Entrance Examination was declared on 24.8.89. The student applied for refund of fees on the next day i. e.25.8.1989. In such a circumstance, can it be fairly said that the action of the College authorities to refuse to refund the tuition fees to the student is just and reasonable? We are very clear in our minds that in this particular case, the College authorities cannot take advantage of the aforesaid Rule and refuse to refund the tuition fees to the student. In our opinion, the grounds on which the respondent refused to refund the tuition fees (i. e. the cancellation was not done within 15 days as per the aforesaid rule) are unjust, unreasonable, unrealistic and irrational. It clearly indicates that the respondent is taking the shelter of the aforesaid rule to appropriate the tuition fee of a student to whom the respondent has not rendered any service of teaching. We are at a loss to know that when there is no service how the tuition fees of a student can be retained. We do not believe that the aforesaid rule is meant to extend illegal benefits to the educational institution. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of this particular case, we find that refusal to refund the tuition fees of appellant's son is not only reprehensible but unjust, irrational and illegal. The rule cannot frustrate the legitimate rights of a consumer to get redress in relation to his right of refund of tuition fees. The intention of the Director behind the aforesaid rule is to protect the interest of the students from unscrupulous private institutions who refuse to refund tuition fees in the event of cancellation of admission. The limitation of 15 days time provided in the rule is clearly inapplicable in the instant case as the application for refund could not be made before the declaration of I. I. T. result in that particular year 1988-89. Thus we find that the loss or injury being implicit it was prejudicial to the consumer interest to refuse to refund the tuition fees. Our conscious is shocked to know that the students or their parents are deprived of their good hard earned money under the guise of a rule which is meant for purposes of refund of tuition fees. Fees are paid for services to be rendered by way of parting education by the educational institution. If there is no rendering of service, question of payment of fees would not arise. In view of the peculiar facts of this case, we feel that the respondent should have taken realistic and reasonable approach to the whole problem and should have refunded the entire fees except Rs.100/- as per aforesaid rule. We do not understand the policy of the College to return Rs.2,364/- only arbitrarily without any basis. We do not think that the respondent College can take advantage of the technical limitation appearing in the aforesaid rule and appropriate the fees of such students who secure admission after getting successful in Joint Entrance Examinations. There is another aspect also in this case which needs to be brought on record. The College has not at all suffered monetarily because of the cancellation of the seat by the student. It is admitted before us by the agent of the respondent that in that academic year all the 40 seats were filled in and there was no vacancy because of the cancellation by the student. Thus, there was no loss suffered by the respondent due to cancellation of the admission by appellant's son. It can be seen in this case that no vacancy of a seat remained through out the year. In view of all these facts we do not agree with the finding of the District Forum, Pune. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum, Pune.