College Liable For Denying Student Right To Appear In Exam After Accepting Fees And Issuing Roll Number: Chandigarh Consumer Commission
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, has held the Institute of Engineering & Technology (I.E.T.), Bhaddal, Punjab, liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for arbitrarily denying a student the opportunity to appear in examinations after accepting fees, issuing a roll number and permitting him to sit for the first paper. The Commission directed the institute to pay ₹50,000 as global compensation, inclusive of litigation costs, to the complainant.
The Bench comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President, and Brij Mohan Sharma, Member, was deciding a consumer complaint filed by Mr. Raman, a D-Pharmacy student, against I.E.T. Bhaddal, the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, and an alleged commission agent of the institute.
The complainant had taken admission in the two-year D-Pharmacy course at I.E.T. Bhaddal in 2019. According to him, the admission was secured based on assurances given by the institute and its agent regarding the fee structure, which was stated to be ₹20,000 per annum towards course fee and ₹12,000 per annum towards transportation charges. The complainant paid the first-year fee of ₹20,000 and transportation charges of ₹6,000 for six months, and attended classes regularly from September 2019 to February 2020.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first-year examination was not conducted. The institute assured the complainant that he would be promoted to the second year. On February 16, 2021, the complainant received a fee circular and date sheet through WhatsApp and was asked to deposit the second-year fee. Acting on these instructions, he visited the institute, filled the APF (examination form) and deposited a total amount of ₹23,000 on February 19, 2021. Thereafter, the institute issued him a roll number.
On February 22, 2021, the complainant received the question paper for the online examination of Pharmaceutics-I, which he completed and submitted. However, he did not receive the question paper for the next examination scheduled on February 24, 2021. Upon contacting the class teacher, he was informed that he was not eligible to sit for the examination as he had allegedly not filled the APF form. Despite personally approaching the institute and asserting that he had completed all formalities, he was not permitted to appear in the examination.
Aggrieved by this conduct, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He contended that the institute’s actions were arbitrary, as it had accepted his fees, issued a roll number and allowed him to appear in the first examination, only to subsequently bar him from the remaining papers. He sought refund of the fees paid, compensation and litigation costs.
The institute, in its defence, contended that the complainant had failed to submit the APF form within the prescribed time despite repeated opportunities given through Board circulars. It alleged that the complainant had deposited the fees at the last moment without completing necessary formalities and that issuance of the roll number was not proof of valid submission of the examination form. The Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training took the stand that it had no role in the alleged lapse, as examination applications were required to be submitted within stipulated timelines. The alleged agent did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte.
After examining the pleadings and evidence, the Commission found no merit in the defence of the institute. It noted that if the complainant had indeed failed to submit the APF form, the institute ought not to have allowed him to appear even in the first examination. On the contrary, the institute had accepted fees towards the second and third semesters, issued a roll number and permitted him to take the examination held on February 22, 2021. The Commission observed that this conduct was self-contradictory and undermined the institute’s claim.
The Commission also took note of internal communications produced by the institute, which showed that several students faced difficulties in submitting examination forms during the COVID-19 period due to communication gaps. In such circumstances, the institute could not place the entire blame on the complainant. It held that the institute had failed to prove that it had communicated any specific deficiency or requirement to the complainant before disqualifying him from appearing in the examination.
Holding that the institute’s actions amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission partly allowed the complaint. However, considering that the complainant had attended classes, it declined to order refund of the fees. Instead, it directed I.E.T. Bhaddal to pay ₹50,000 as global compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant, inclusive of litigation expenses. The amount was directed to be paid within 60 days, failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till realisation. The complaint against the Punjab State Board and the agent was dismissed, as no deficiency was found on their part.
Cause Title: Raman vs. Institute of Engineering & Technology, Bhaddal & Ors.
Case No: CC/203/2021
Coram: Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President, Brij Mohan Sharma, Member
