|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IF you are having trouble getting a refund from an educational institution, then this is for you. In an order delivered on November 10, the highest consumer court in the country has made it clear that educational institutions and universities cannot take shelter under the terms and conditions that run contrary to the regulator’s instructions on the subject and deny fee refund to students. In this particular case, Punjab Technical University had taken the stand that as per the conditions laid down by it, the student in this case had no right to seek a refund and that he had to forfeit the entire fee deposited with the first institute if he moved to another. The national consumer disputes redressal commission, however, dismissed this argument on the ground that the directions of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) on the issue were supreme and the institution has to refund the fee paid by the student. This order should help all those students who are denied a refund on the basis of unfair terms and conditions drawn up by the colleges themselves or by the university. In fact following a large number of complaints pertaining to non-refund of fees, AICTE issued a public notice in June 2009, saying that in the event of a student withdrawing before the starting of the courses, the entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs 1000, shall be refunded to the student. AICTE also said that 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, wherever applicable. It also warned institutions that any violation of these instructions shall call for punitive action, including withdrawal of approval and recognition of the erring institutions. Thus students can complain to AICTE or the University Grants Commission (which has issued more or less similar instructions on fee refund). If even after that, they fail to get the refund, then they can seek redress before the court. In the case decided on November 10, for example, the student had cleared the CET 2001 test conducted by Punjab Technical University, and through counselling conducted by it, got admission to the Lala Lajpat Rai Institute of Engineering and Technology, Moga, and paid on August 16, 2001, Rs 80,820 towards the fee. Subsequently, he participated in a special counselling held on August 29, and this time, was granted admission to REC, Jalandhar. The very next day, he informed the first college of his decision to join REC and sought a refund of the fee paid. The contention of the college as well as PTU here was that in its advertisement announcing the special counselling, PTU had made it clear that if the students who had already got admission through the earlier counselling participated in this and wished to change the college, they had to forfeit the entire fee paid to the first college. In view of this, the student cannot claim a refund, they argued. While the courts at the district and state levels agreed with this point of view, the national commission disagreed and said the institute had to abide by the directions of AICTE in the matter and return the fee (Shri Saravpreet Singh vs the Principal, Lala Lajpat Rai Institute of Engineering and Technology, Moga, and Registrar, Punjab Technical University, RP No 343 of 2009). Earlier in the year, in the case of the Registrar, Andhra University, vs Janjanam Jagdeesh (RP No 3926 of 2009, decided on July 6, 2010), the national commission had referred to the UGC directive on the subject and asked the college to retain Rs 1000 and refund the rest of the fee collected from the student along with 6 per cent interest. Similarly, in 2008, in the case of Nipun Nagar vs the Symbiosis Institute of International Business, too, the commission had quoted the UGC directive and asked the institute to refund Rs 1 lakh along with 6 per cent interest( RP No 1336 of 2008, decided on 7-11-2008). So the courts are there
to help students in such situations, but parents and students should
ensure that an application for a refund is made without any delay.
|
|||
|
|
|||
