MANU/CF/0731/2018

Equivalent Citation: IV(2018)C PJ28(NC )

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI
Revision Petition No. 1783 of 2016
Decided On: 06.08.2018
Appellants: Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
Vs.
Respondent: Arun Kumar
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V.K. Jain, J. (Presiding Member)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Arti Bansal and Ashutosh Nandan Atray, Advocates
V.K. Jain, J. (Presiding Member)
1 . The complainant/respondent took admission in B. Tech. (Computer Science and
Engineering) Course of the petitioner university in the academic year 2010-11
depositing a sum of Rs. 53,000 vide receipt dated 3.8.2010. As per the counselling
schedule notified by the petitioner university, the admission could be withdrawn
latest upto 27.8.2010, though the classes were to commence on 2.8.2010 and all the
students taking admission during the first counselling were to report to their
respective college/institution on 2.8.2010 or on the date following the day of
admission, in case the admission was granted after 2.8.2010. The complaint, who
had been given admission in Guru Premsukh Memorial College of Engineering, did
not report to the said college nor did he deposit the fee at the said college till
30.11.2010. Vide letter dated 30.4.2012, the aforesaid college sought cancellation of
the aforesaid student. Admission was accordingly cancelled on 2.5.2012. The amount
deposited by the complainant having not been refunded, he approached the
concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking refund of the said
amount.
2 . The District Forum directed the petitioner university to refund the entire amount
deposited by the complainant after deducting a processing fee of Rs. 1,000. A sum of
Rs. 5,000 was awarded as compensation to the complainant along with another sum
of Rs. 5,000 as the cost of litigation.
3 . Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner
university approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said
appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.
4 . The whole of the case of the complainant is based upon a Circular dated
23.4.2007 issued by University Grants Commission. The said circular, to the extent it
is relevant, reads as under:
5 . It would thus be seen that the entire amount collected from the student was
required to be refunded after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,000 in a case where the
student withdrew from the programme. In the event of the student leaving after
joining the course and the seat so vacated by him being filled by another candidate
by the last date of admission, the university was to return the fee collected from him

07-11-2019 (Page 1 of 2) www.manupatra.com NLSIU Bangalore

with proportionate deduction of monthly fee and proportionate hostel fee wherever
applicable.
6. The purpose of aforesaid circular in my view is not to allow unjust enrichment of
the institution/university where a student withdraws from the programme, provided
that he withdraws from the programme by the last date stipulated for this purpose or
before the date scheduled for joining the course. In the event of the student leaving
the course after joining it, he would be entitled to deduction of proportionate fee and
other charges, provided that the seat vacated by him is filled up by admitting another
student. In the event of not joining a course at all, he would be entitled to refund of
the entire fee and other charges paid by him after deduction of the processing fee,
provided that the seat so vacated on account of withdrawal by him, is filled up by the
university/institution. However, in the event of his not joining the course and seat
vacated by him also not being filled up, he is not entitled to any refund at all since
the university cannot be deprived of the fee which it had collected against the seat
allotted to such a student. If the entire amount deposited by him is refunded, without
filling up the seat vacated by him, it would result in substantial loss to the
university/institution which made arrangements including providing infrastructure for
all the students who are granted admission in the course. For instance, if there is a
batch of 25 students in a course and the university is able to fill up all the 25 seats,
despite withdrawal by one or more students, it must necessarily refund the amount
deposited by the students withdrawing from the admission so that there is no unjust
enrichment to it. However, if the seat so vacated by such a student remains vacant on
account of late withdrawal of admission by him, the university, in my view, is not
required to refund the amount deposited by him. Asking the university to refund the
said amount would neither be fair nor reasonable in such an eventuality. For the
reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same
are accordingly set aside. The complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to
costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

07-11-2019 (Page 2 of 2) www.manupatra.com NLSIU Bangalore