Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has turned down an appeal of MCM DAV College for Women, Sector 36, and directed it to refund 90 per cent of the tuition fee to their former student Anmol Goyal — a resident of Sector 38.

The college had filed an appeal in the Commission against the order of the Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II. The Forum had directed the college to refund 90 per cent of the tuition fee and also pay Rs 3,000 to the student as litigation costs.

In her complaint to the Forum, Anmol had stated that she was a student of B.Com (II) in MCM DAV College. For the session 2010-2011, she paid Rs 22,660 as fee on July 7, 2010. Anmol said that on July 16, she got admission in SD College, Sector 32. She requested MCM DAV College for a fee refund, since she had not attended even a single class for the course.

Anmol told the Forum that the seat vacated by her was filled by another candidate. However, the college refunded only Rs 13,596 to her. Anmol stated that as per the guidelines issued by University Grants Commission (UGC), institutions and universities must maintain a waiting list of candidates. If any student withdraws before the start of the course, the next candidate in the waiting list must be given admission against the vacant seat.

Anmol claimed that in this light, the college should have refund her entire fee after deduction of Rs 1,000 as processing fee. Her grouse was that despite her repeated requests, the college did not make the refund to her. Hence, she filed a complaint in the Forum.

In its reply, the college stated that the student chose to leave the college of her own accord. The college also claimed that no advertisement was issued for direct admission to BCom. Hence, no waiting list was maintained, and the seat vacated by her remained vacant in second year and also third year.

The college added that the student had joined a three-year degree course in July 2009 and left after completing one year. Hence, the seat vacated by her remained vacant, and she was refunded 60 per cent of the fee, deposited by her.

After considering the case, the Forum maintained that the student was entitled to 90 per cent refund of the tuition fee and ordered accordingly. The college appealed to the Commission against the order.

President of the Commission Justice Sham Sunder (retd) and Members Neena Sandhu and Jagroop Singh Mahal referred to the UGC guidelines adopted by the UT Education Department. The guidelines stated that if a student informed the college prior to the closure of the admission about withdrawal of admission, and no class had been attended either, 90 per cent of the fee had to be refunded.

The Commission further observed that no document was produced by the college that admissions had already closed when Anmol informed them of her withdrawal. In this light, the Commission held that the student was entitled to 90 per cent refund of the fee deposited by her, and also litigation costs. The Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the college and upheld the order given by the Forum.