Can college student get full fee refund after cancelling admission? Madhya Pradesh consumer body answers

‘Education loan not sanctioned, admission cancelled’

• The complainant approached the district commission in 2012 on the grounds that he had enrolled for the academic year 2012-13 in the said institute and had deposited Rs 1.11 lakh for the same.
• He further claimed that his parents were not able to obtain an education loan from the bank, and then he immediately requested the said institute on August 24, 2012, seven days before the cutoff date of August 31, 2012, for the cancellation of his admission from their institute.
• He further stated that the said institute, however, refunded only Rs 41,000, retaining Rs 69,000 out of the fees paid for admission.

• The complainant alleged that since he had applied for cancellation before the cut-off date, the seat could have been filled by the institute, and therefore, he was entitled to receive back the entire amount deposited by him after deducting Rs 1,000 as cancellation charges.
• He alleged deficiency of services on the part of the said institute.

‘No infirmity, illegality’

• The said institute submitted a declaration stating that the fees paid by the candidate are refunded after deducting the cancellation charges, mentioned as Rs 1,000, subject to the seat being filled before the cut-off date.
• The declaration also included the brochure for admission for the academic year 2012-13, in which the complainant took admission for a programme.
• The brochure provided that if a request for cancellation of admission is received before the date of start of the academic session, and the seat could be filled by the institute before the cutoff date, then the entire fee, less Rs 1,000, was to be refunded.
• It was further provided that if the request for cancellation of admission is received before the commencement of the academic session, but the seat could not be filled by the institute, then only the security deposit is refundable.
• Since the complainant requested cancellation before the start of the academic session and the vacancy created in the said academic year remained unfilled, the institute was justified in retaining the fees.
• The previous order of the district commission dismissing the complaint’s request for a refund does not suffer from any “infirmity or illegality”.

‘Disputed cut-off date’

• Appearing for the complainant, advocate Manoj Agrawal argued that his client had requested the said institute to cancel his admission on August 24, 2012, seven days before the cutoff date, which was August 31 of the same year.
• He submitted that the said institute should have refunded the amount deposited by his client, only after deducting Rs 1,000 as cancellation charges, but the institute refunded only Rs 41,000, and the remaining amount of Rs 69,000 was not refunded.

• Agrawal called this act of the said institute a “deficiency in service” on their part and prayed to set aside the earlier order of the district commission.
• He also referred to a previous order on similar issues decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to strengthen his case.

‘Misleading cutoff date’

• On the contrary, advocate Bharti Gangwal, appearing for the said institute, stated that the complainant has tried to mislead the commission by stating that the cutoff date was August 31, 2012, since in reality the original cutoff date was August 25, 2012.
• Gangwal further stated that August 31 was actually the last date for the administrative requirement for the institute for filing and uploading the document on the said institute’s website.
• She contended that the complainant had applied for withdrawal of admission on August 24, 2012, which was hardly 24 hours before the cutoff date.
• It was also pointed out that due to the withdrawal of admission by the complainant, the seat created in the said academic year remained vacant. Therefore, a refund was given in accordance with the same, while the hostel charges were also refunded.
• Referring to a previous apex court’s judgment, she also pointed out that education is not a commodity and educational institutions do not provide any kind of service. Therefore, there cannot be a question of deficiency of service in matters of admission and fees, etc.
• She also emphasised that, considering the Supreme Court’s previous order that such matters cannot be entertained by the consumer forum, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and accordingly prayed to dismiss this appeal.