UIET, Panjab University, told to refund fee

Chandigarh, August 30

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has held the University Institute of Engineering and Technology (UIET), Panjab University, guilty of deficiency in service for admitting a student despite his refusal, and not refunding the fee. The commission has directed the institute to refund the fee amount of Rs 38,000 to the student with interest and pay Rs 10,000 to him as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment, and Rs 7,000 as litigation costs.

Apurv Singhal, a student residing in Sector 48, in a complaint filed through counsel Devinder Kumar, said on August 8, 2018, he applied for the spot-round admission to the UIET by paying the participation fee of Rs 40,000. The final seat was supposed to be confirmed by the institute on August 12. However, on August 9, he got a confirmation call for admission at Chitkara Engineering College, Banur. The same day, his mother sent an email to the Joint Admission Committee (JAC) stating that they wanted to opt out of the spot round, and requested for fee refund. On August 12, when he checked the website, he was surprised that a seat was allotted to him at Engineering College, Sector 26, Chandigarh. He again sent an email, followed by a representation dated October 11, praying for a fee refund, but to no avail.

The UIET authorities said the complainant had himself confirmed for participation in the spot round and accordingly, he was allotted a seat in CCET, Sector 26, Chandigarh, as per admission rules. The participation fee was not paid to the (UIET) but to the Joint Admission Committee 2018, which was transferred to the CCET on September 13. As the complainant was allotted a seat, he had no claim to fee refund. Further, once the admission process was over, the JAC for that year ceased to have any control over any of the seats in any of the participating institutes.

After hearing of the arguments, the commission said it was very surprising that despite duly receiving information from the complainant regarding his refusal to participate in the admission process, the opposite party (UIET) admitted him on August 12 and offered him a seat. So far as their plea regarding fee in question lying with the CCET, or the JAC-2018 was concerned, both these parties were alien to the complainant. The acts of the opposite party in forcing the complainant to pursue education in an institute which was not of his choice/priority list, not responding to the email, not addressing his genuine request and not refunding fee certainly proved deficiency in service on its part.