ORDER (Per: C.C. Pant, Member): This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.01.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 105 of 2004 and directing the opposite party to pay to the complainants sum of Rs. 22,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that one Km. Meenu Kumar – complainant No. 2 took admission in Bachelor of Physiotherapy course for the academic year 2004-2005 in Sardar Bhagwan Singh Post Graduate Institute of Biomedical Sciences and Research – opposite party. Complainant No. 1 – Sh. Pramod Kumar, father of Km. Meenu Kumar, deposited Rs. 69,000/- against course fee in Punjab National Bank. The complainant No. 1 had told the opposite party that the daughter had also applied for B.Sc. (Hons.) O.T. course in Deen Dayal Hospital, New Delhi and if she would succeed in getting the admission there, she would ask for the refund of the fee deposited with the opposite party. The opposite party did not object to it and said that if timely information during process of admission was given and the seat vacated by Km. Meenu Kumar is filled up by another candidate and the opposite party does not suffer any financial loss, the fee would be refunded. The complainant No. 1 informed the opposite party vide his letter dated 05.08.2004 that his daughter had got admission in Deen Dayal Hospital, New Delhi and, therefore, the fee deposited be refunded. In reply, the opposite party informed the complainants that sum of Rs. 17,000/-, which was deposited against hostel fee, could be refunded provided that the complainants furnish an undertaking to the effect that the fee deposited under other heads would not be claimed by them. This led the complainants to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide order impugned dated 08.01.2008 in the above terms. Not satisfied with the relief awarded by the District Forum, the complainants have filed this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the same is admitted for decision on merit. 5. Not satisfied with the relief awarded by the District Forum, the complainants have filed this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the same is admitted for decision on merit. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party – respondent argued that the opposite party has not made any deficiency in service because deficiency in relation to academic institutions means that the institution has not provided facilities required for the course, viz. qualified faculty, laboratory, library etc. The complainants have not alleged any such deficiency in service. The allegation of the complainants is with regard to refund of the fee deposited by them. In respect of the fee deposited by the complainants, it is clearly stated in the prospectus that, “once admission is confirmed and fee is deposited, it is not refundable or transferable under any circumstances and it does not include fees for education tours. However, seat so falling vacant, will be filled”. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party also submitted that the candidate – complainant No. 2 had also signed a declaration while applying for the said course. One of the clauses of this declaration was that, “I shall abide by the rules and regulations as given in the Hand Book of information or that may be framed by the institute from time to time.” 7. Thus, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party has not made any deficiency in service. In support of his contention, learned counsel pressed into service a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Apeejay Institute of Management and Information Technology Vs. Prashant Ashok, 2009 NCJ 237 (NC). In the reported decision, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that as per the undertaking given by the guardian of the complainant, refund of fees cannot be allowed. More so, as per the prospectus of the institute, the complainant is entitled to get refundable security only deposited by him. 8. The learned counsel for the complainants – appellants argued that the opposite party was informed well in time in respect of Km. Meenu’s admission in some other institute and the admission process/counseling was continuing at that time. As a result, the opposite party had filled up the seat vacated by Km. Meenu Kumar. 8. The learned counsel for the complainants – appellants argued that the opposite party was informed well in time in respect of Km. Meenu’s admission in some other institute and the admission process/counseling was continuing at that time. As a result, the opposite party had filled up the seat vacated by Km. Meenu Kumar. Thus, no financial loss had occurred to the opposite party. The learned counsel pointed out to paragraph No. 10 of the consumer complaint, wherein the complainants have averred that the seat so vacated, was filled up by another candidate (Paper No. 10). The opposite party has not negated it in its written statement. The learned counsel pointed out to paragraph No. 7 of the written statement of the opposite party (Paper No. 17), wherein the opposite party has not controverted the aforesaid contention of the complainants. The learned counsel further submitted that even the Hon’ble National Commission is of the view in such cases that the fee paid by the candidate, would be refundable. The learned counsel cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Comed-K Vs. T. Nagamani, II (2009) CPJ 314 (NC). 9. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute on the fact that the complainants had informed the opposite party during the period when the admission process was continuing on. From the perusal of paragraph No. 7 of the written statement of the opposite party, it appears that the seat vacated by Km. Meenu Kumar – complainant No. 2, was filled up by the opposite party. As such, the opposite party has not suffered any financial loss. In such cases, if the institute refuses to refund the fee and forfeits the fee on the pretext that the Prospectus/Hand Book of Information states so and the candidate/candidate’s guardian had given an undertaking to that effect, it certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. As such, the opposite party has not suffered any financial loss. In such cases, if the institute refuses to refund the fee and forfeits the fee on the pretext that the Prospectus/Hand Book of Information states so and the candidate/candidate’s guardian had given an undertaking to that effect, it certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is true that if the private institutes are asked to refund the fee in each and every case when the students withdraw themselves from the course, the management can not run the institutes, but if a student has withdrawn himself/herself from the course without attending the classes even for a single day and has not enjoyed the resources of the institute and, moreover, the seat vacated by him/her has been filed up by the institute, it would be most unjust and unfair to forfeit the fees in the garb of terms and conditions stated in the Prospectus/Hand Book of Information or the declaration/undertaking signed by the candidate/guardian of the candidate. In our opinion, such terms and conditions, declarations etc. in respect of refund of fee should always be interpreted in the light of the facts of each case whether the withdrawal of the candidate caused any loss to the institute or not. Such issues came up in bulk for consideration before the Ministry of Human Resources Development and University Grants Commission. After a thoughtful consideration, the University Grants Commission has issued a Public Notice vide its Circular dated 23.04.2007, which reads as under : “It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC) that institutions and universities including institutions deemed to be Universities are admitting students to various programmes of the studies long before the actual starting of academic session, collecting full fee from the admitted students, and, retaining their school/institution leaving certificate in original. The institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates. The Commission is of the view that the institutions/Universities, by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original. However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the school/institution leaving certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original. The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates in the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait-listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1000 (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable. The Universities/Institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The UGC shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected, take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions. Institutions/Universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them. This notice has been reiterated subsequently also.” 10. The decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Comed-K (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the complainants, is also based on the guidelines issued by the UGC. In its latest decision dated 06.07.2010 in the case of Andhra University and another Vs. Janjanam Jagedeesh, III (2010) CPJ 310 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has reiterated the same view. 11. For the above reasons, this appeal stands on merit and the order passed by the District Forum needs modification in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission. Accordingly, it would be just to direct the opposite party – respondent to refund the entire fee deposited by the complainants after deducting Rs. 1,000/- against processing/administrative charges. However, interest @ 9% p.a. is on the higher side and it should be @ 7% p.a. 12. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 08.01.2008 of the District Forum is modified and the opposite party – respondent is directed to pay to the complainants – appellants sum of Rs. 1,000/- against processing/administrative charges. However, interest @ 9% p.a. is on the higher side and it should be @ 7% p.a. 12. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 08.01.2008 of the District Forum is modified and the opposite party – respondent is directed to pay to the complainants – appellants sum of Rs. 68,000/- together with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filling of the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment. Costs of the appeal made easy.