Skip to main content

Kolkata B-school wins case against student asking for fees refund

 A Kolkata-based business school has won its battle against a post-graduate programme applicant with the apex consumer court reversing a subordinate commission’s direction to refund Rs.34,000 out of the admission fee deposited by her.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission offered relief to Globsyn Business School and held that it was not wrong in refusing to refund the admission fee received from Mayuri Ghosh, a resident of Kolkata’s Durga Charan Doctor Road area.

Ghosh deposited Rs.35,000 as admission fee in April 2009 for a post-graduate course but sought a refund a month later citing a financial crunch and inability to pursue the course, which required a total fee of Rs.535,000.

“Admission fee deposited by complainant was not refundable and the complainant was not entitled to seek refund only on the ground of severe financial crises,” said national commission Presiding Member K.S. Chaudhari and Member B.C. Gupta.

The top consumer commission, in a recent order, also ruled that the business school was not deficient in service in rejecting Ghosh’s plea for a refund.

The business school had moved the national commission against the state consumer commission’s direction to refund Ghosh Rs.34,000.

The business school, based in the Salt Lake Electronic Complex, said as per the March 10, 2009, offer letter to Ghosh, the admission fee was non-refundable and the state commission erred in accepting her plea seeking a refund.

The national commission accepted the business school’s plea and said it “has not committed any deficiency in service in refusing refund of Rs.35,000 received as admission fee”.

“Consequently, the revision petition is to be allowed and the order passed by the state commission is set aside and complaint filed by Ghosh is dismissed with no order as to costs,” said Chaudhari.

The business school earlier contested the complaint filed by Ghosh in a district forum and submitted that she deposited the fee with the full knowledge of the condition that there would be no refund.

The institution said that of the 180 seats for the session in which Ghosh sought admission, 15 remained vacant.

While countering Ghosh’s plea for a refund, the business school said that it incurred an expense of Rs.141,667 per candidate towards the admission process and had suffered a loss of Rs.21,25,000 due the 15 vacant seats.

Citing the loss, the business school claimed that it was not in a position to refund Ghosh Rs.35,000 and sought the dismissal of her complaint.

Counsel for the business school cited an earlier case and claimed that “students seeking admission to professional colleges and even otherwise are fairly mature and are supposed to understand the full implications of filling the admission forms…”

The student, therefore, will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that may suit him at a given time, the business school said.

Ghosh now has the option of approaching the Supreme Court against the national consumer commission’s decision.

Article referred: http://www.firstpost.com/india/kolkata-b-school-wins-case-against-student-asking-for-fees-refund-903173.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...