Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 620 (MP)

National Law Institute University v. Aditya Kumar

2010-06-24

NEERJA SINGH, PRAMILA S.KUMAR, S.K.KULSHRESHTHA

body2010
Judgment As per S.K. Kulshreshtha, J. (President) :- This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated 30-4-2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in Case No. 543/06, whereby the Forum has directed the appellant-University to refund to the respondent- student, a sum of Rs. 26,00()/- with interest @ 6% per annum and pay Rs. 1,000/- towards cost. 2. It is not disputed that on the basis of merit of the respondent-student he was granted admission to 1st year Law Course (B.A., LL.B. Honours) but immediately thereafter the respondent sought withdrawal from the Institute. The appellant-Institute refunded to him a sum of Rs. 3,600/-, which has been charged by the Institute towards caution money but the tuition fee has not been refunded. The appellant-University does not dispute that despite withdrawal of the candidature of the respondent, all the seats were filled up and it was not a case that the seat remained vacant. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice a judgment of the National Commission in the case of Nitin Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, 2009 NCJ 234 (NC), to the effect that under the UGC circular, the institutes are liable to refund the fees of students if they discontinue/withdraw from the Institute 'and secure admission in any other institution. A similar decision of the National Commission reported in 2009 NCJ 741 (NC), Comed-K Vs. T. Nagamani, has been cited. In this decision, it is held that where no loss occurred to the College on account of withdrawal, the refund of the deposited fees is justified. 4. In the present case, all the seats were filled up, in fact, there were wait listed candidates, with the result the appellant-University has not suffered any loss on account of withdrawal of the candidature of the respondent-student. Under these circumstances, the direction of the District Forum does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed.