DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE; SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

Case No.288/11

In the matter of:

Sh. Akash Rawal
H.No. 369, Rajput MOhalla
Ghonda
Delhi : Complainant

Vs

1. Director (A&F) National Council for Hotel Management Delhi Institute of Hotel Management Behind Lady Sriram College Lajpat Nagar-IV New Delhi-110024 : OP1

2. JEE Cell National Council for Hotel Management A-34, Sector-62 Noida-201301 : OP2

3. The Director Indira Gandhi National Open University Maidan Garhi New Delhi : OP3

Date of Institution: 21.04.11 Date of Order : 26.10.12

ORDER

N.A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegations that the OPs in order to promote and attract the student by offering the course of Bachelor of Science in Hospitality and Hotel Admn. Issued JEE 2010 Information Broucher with promise to carrier opportunities and the services. The complainant fascinated by the advertisement purchased the prospectus by paying Rs.900/- and as such he becomes the consumer within the definition of the CPA. Complainant qualified and obtained 10568 rank and thus becomes eligible for counseling to get an admission. He accordingly paid a sum of Rs.28,550/- through DD No.037554, dt 25.6.10, Rs.9000/- through DD No.37503 dt. 17.6.10 and also Rs.1000/- through DD No.37502, dt. 17.6.10. Receipts were accordingly issued to him. At first instance he was given admission at Sri Nagar. The complainant did not opt to go there and he asked for the refund of the amount on 5.8.10. He was informed that he will be allowed refund, but it has not been refunded. The complainant has to visit several time and have to incur expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. In these circumstances, the complainant has prayed for the entire refund of Rs.38,550/- together with interest @18%. And another Rs.10,000/- along with 12% interest as compensation.

In the written statement filed by the OP3. They have taken up the plea that the matter does not come within the purview of CPA as it is not a case of deficiency of service and it is a case of opting out of taking admission from the said course. There has been no opportunity to the OP to render any services to the complainant; as such the complainant cannot be treated as consumer. All the payment have been made to OP1 and at no stage any amount was paid to OP3.

Reply on behalf of OP1 & 2 has been filed and it has been alleged that the amount of Rs.38,550/- was not refunded in view of Clause 6.11 of JEE 10 Information Brochuer which provide that no amount will be refunded except the caution money if the candidate after the provisional allotment of the seat does not withdraw within 20 days. The complainant has asked for refund on 5.8.10 after the expiry of the stipulated period. They have also taken up the plea that there is no relationship of the consumer and service provider between the parties. As such this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Rejoinder have been filed from the side of the complainant repelling the contentions of the OPs.

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This fact is not disputed by OP1 and OP2 that the complainant has not taken the admission for the said course. The only issue which arises for our consideration is as to whether the complainant is not entitled for any refund in view of the Clause 6.11 which says that “ the counseling fee of Rs.1000/- is not refundable and Rs.9000/- paid towards fee for first semester shall be refunded on full on the spot at the counseling centre if the candidate has not been allotted any institute. Full refund of fee for the first semester will be permitted if such candidate is desirous of withdrawing their provisional allotment of seat provided he submit his request in writing by 13.6.10 to 28.6.10 at their respective counseling centre. 50% of the deposited fee shall be refunded if the provisional allotment of seat is withdrawn in writing from the allotted institute within 20 days from 29.6.10 or from the date of provisional allotment of seat whichever is later and thereafter no refund of the fee shall be allowed except the caution money”.

This is admitted by the complainant in his pleadings that he was fascinated by the brouchre and the terms and conditions mentioned are very much part of that brochure. It is clearly mentioned in the complaint that the amount was deposited on 17.6.10 and also on 25.6.10. As per own allegation he demanded this refund of this amount as he was allotted the institute at Sri Nagar and he himself opted not to go there due to some personal problems. In these circumstances, the withdrawal is voluntarily on the part of the complainant and not because of some act or omission on the part of OP. In such circumstances, the terms and conditions of the Information Brochure shall be very much applicable. As per the terms and conditions such option could have been exercised by the complainant only within 20 days from 29.6.10 or from the date of provisional allotment of the seat. In the present case it is clear from the averment in the complaint that the seat was allotted at institute at Sri Nagar and the complainant exercised his option for withdrawal much after 20 days as mentioned in Clause 6.11 which deals with the refund of the fee. Since the lapses is on the part of the complainant in not exercising his option for withdrawal within time the OP cannot be blamed for not refunding the amount of fee for first semester and the other amount. In such circumstances only the caution money can be returned to the complainant.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Neha Sharma v/s Vice Chancellor reported in 118(2005) Delhi Law Times page No.518 have ruled in similar circumstances that where the petitioner himself prayed for the refund of the amount and the OP refused to return the amount as per the terms of the application rule in the Information Bulletin where it is set out specifically the extent and amount of deduction at the time of refund and go off date is provided and the OP take action in accordance with the Information Bulletin, in such circumstances the action of the OP cannot be legally challenged.

The law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case and we do not find any ground to order the refund of the entire amount deposited by the complainant with the OP except the amount of caution money.

We accordingly direct the OP to refund the amount of caution money to the complainant within 30 days of the date of this judgement.

Since the complainant was entitled for caution money and OP have not paid it. This is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of OP. We accordingly hold OP deficient in providing the service. The complainant has been put to harassment and mental pain and agony. We allowed a compensation of Rs.10,000/- which shall also include the cost of litigation . Let all the amount be paid within 30 days failing which the OP shall pay interest @9% over this amount till it is finally paid.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per rule

(T. VIJAYAN) (N.A. ZAIDI)
MEMBER PRESIDENT