BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 18th April 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.134/2016
(Admitted on 7.4.2016)
Yash G Suvarna,
S/o Gangadhar Suvarna,
R/o 602A A Wing, Sai Nidhi Chs,
Opp. Karnataka High School,
Ghatla, Chembur East,
Mumbai 400071.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. VK)
VERSUS
- Shri Mohan Alva, Chairman, Alvas Education Foundation (R), Moodabidre.
- Ashok Shetty, Administrative Officer, Alvas Institute of Engineering and Technology, Moodabidre
- Dr.Peter Fernandes, Principal, Alvas Institute of Engineering and Technology, Shobhavana Campus, Mijar, Moodabidre 574225. …. Opposite Parties
(Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 and 3. Sri. MRB)
(Opposite party No.2: Ex-parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI
- This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant on 17.8.2015 to join Alvas Institute for first year B.E. Civil Engineering along with parents, approached Opposite Party who has demanded to pay the fees immediately if they want the seat. Accordingly agreed and paid total amount of Rs.1,23,390/ and booked the seat for the civil engineering course. On 17.8.2015 immediately after paying the said fees at about 12.00Hrs, the Opposite Party informed the complainant to be ready to pay extra fees for eligibility for the admission in the selected course and informed to pay uncertain charges to admit without eligibility. This caused to the complainant that if not having the eligibility to admit in this institute then it would lead to repercussion. So quit from the institution and informed to the parents that continue education in such institution which eligibility will be passing after paying the extra payment and also the hostel and the study centre is also far from each other. The complainant parents also agreed argument and they informed the same to the institution on 18.8.2015. Hence the Opposite Party has returned the documents received on 19.8.2015 and asked to come after 15 days for refund of the fee. Accordingly complainants parents approached the Opposite Party and requested to refund of the fee. But the Opposite Party has refused to repay the fee collected by complainant parents. since the complainant admission process is not completed not handed over photo, transfer certificate, migration certificate etc, to complete the admission process the complainant just booked the seat on the suggestion by the Opposite Party no.2. The complainant quit the institution within 24 hrs after paying the fees for booking the seat. After several visits to college no one is taking responsibility to pay back the fees for booked seat. The official of the college has denied meeting the Opposite Party No.1, hence the complainant had requested the Opposite Party No.1 by writing the letter dated 5.1.2016 for refund of the fee. But till date the Opposite Party No.1 has not responded letter dated 5.1.2016. Mean time the complainant mother called the Opposite Party No.1 over the phone and requested for return the fee paid for booking the seat. But the Opposite Party No.1 has threatened the mother and rejected her request for return of the fee. Further the complainant said that the student is left his own wish could not repay the fee which is already paid. The University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi has issued an public notice bearing No.F.No.1.3/2007 (CPP II) dated 23.4.2007 it very clearly clarified that candidate withdrawing before starting of the course, the entire fee collected from the student after deduction of the processing of not more that Rs.1000/ shall be refunded by the institution to the student. A circular was issued by the Vishveshvaraya Technological University bearing circular No. VTU/GEN (4)/2015.16/9873 dated 18.2.2016 regarding the retention of original documents and confiscating the fees. It clearly state that all affiliated colleges informed to abide with the instruction issued by UGC in public interest, transfer certificate, migration certificate, photo of the student is mandatory for the student admitting to the college. In this case not given these documents, hence admission to the college is not completed.
Since have not given the transfer certificate, migration certificate, and photo for completion of the admission process, just booked the seat on the suggestion from the Opposite Party No.2 but later on complainant ineligibility was withdrawn the booked seat and requested for refund of the already paid but Opposite Parties are refused the same. Hence the above complaint filed by the complainant before this forum under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986(here in after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this For a to refund of Rs.1,23,390/ along with compensation and cost and certain other reliefs.
II. Version Notice served to the opposite parties by RPAD, inspite of receiving notice the Opposite Party No.2 neither appeared nor contested the case. Opposite Party No.1 and 3 filed version stating that the non refund of the fees paid is as per the mutually agreed terms and conditions of allotment of seat by the institution. The repayment of the fees for allotment of management quota of the seat against the terms and condition of allotment will not only damage the fiscal frame of the institution but render the terms of contract a fallacy. Hence the non refund is justified. Admittedly the complainant after having availed admission for the professional course under the management quota of the institution has not availed the services for his own personal reason and the institution having not refused the service the present complaint itself is misconceived one. it is respectfully submitted that the non-refund of the fee paid is in pursuance to the valid mutual agreement as to the allotment of seat under management quota and the dispute relating thereto is outside the scope of C.P.Act. Complainant along with his parent/guardian having voluntarily agreed to forfeit the fees paid for the allotment of the seat and executed and delivered the undertaking bond, now is estopped from claiming it back as the seat availed by the complainant remained unfilled, thus causing the vacancy of the seat for the whole course period. The Alvas Education Foundation is a private trust which is running the Alva’s institute of Engineering and Technology, without any Government Aid. The rules and regulations are framed for the better management of the institution and are not opposed to law. Whenever admission is sought under management quota, the terms of seat allotment is informed in advance to the candidate as well as the parent/guardian of the candidate and the same is also brought to the notice through the application for admission. Admissions are provided only to the candidate and the parent/guardian who are agreeable for the terms and conditions of admission on their executing undertaking bond. The 3rd Opposite Party distinctly remembers that the complainant along with his mother having visited him with request for allotment of seat under management quota for the admission year 2015 much after the commencement of the classes but few days prior to the date of his admission. As the complainant was not having minimum marks for the eligibility for admission for the course under general category, the same was conveyed. Once again they had approached with documents evidencing that the candidate belongs to the reserved category and were agreeable for the terms and conditions of allotment, availed admission by paying requisite college/Hostel fees on the same day since the classes had already commenced. and prays for dismissal.
III. In support of the above complaint the complainant Mr. Yash G Suvarna, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C9. On behalf of the opposite party Dr. Peter Fernandes, (RW1) Principal, of opposite party also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R4.
IV. In view of the above said facts, the points for arise for our consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant proved that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the arguments submitted by the complainant and Opposite Party and also considered the materials that was placed before the Fora and answered the points are as follows:
Point No. (i) : Affirmative
Point No. (ii) : Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
V. POINTS No. (i) and (ii):
It is the case of the complainant that on 17.8.2015 the complainant to join civil engineer course at Alva’s Institute Moodabidre. The office has informed that, if the complainant want in seat he should pay the fees immediately for the academic year. Since the seat about to fill hence to reserve the seat by paying advanced fee amount to the Opposite Party. Accordingly complainant has paid Rs.1,23,390/ as per Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. on the same day after paying the advance fee of Rs.1,23,390/ for confirm the seat, Opposite Party informed the parents of the complainant to be ready to pay extra payment for admission. Since the complainant secured only 43% marks in the average and that marks are not enough for general merit quota. This words were hurt the complainant and informed to the parents that not to join the institute. The parents are agreed the decision of the complainant. Hence on 18.8.2015 complainant informed the Opposite Party for stop the proceedings so that Opposite Party has agreed to returned the original marks card on 19.8.2015 and ask them to come after 15 days to collect refund of the advanced fee paid by the complainant. After several times visited to the Opposite Party college not refunded the fee paid by the complainant, hence the present complaint. On the other hand the Opposite Party contended that complainant had got admission to the Opposite Party institution subsequently discontinued on account of his personal reasons and took back the documents submitted. The seat availed by the complainant was under the management quota which remained vacant on account of the abandoning the seat availed. The admission of complainant was under the management quota on the mutually agreed terms and conditions for admission to the course which are neither illegal nor oppose to any principles of natural justice. Hence non refund of the fee paid pursuant to the terms of service agreed upon between the parties is justified, hence prayed for dismissal. Now the points for consideration is that it is undisputed fact that as per Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 the complainant paid Rs.1,23,390/ as advance fee. The dispute between the parties that the amount paid by the complainant is refundable or not?
As per documents produced by the complainant it is true that the complainant paid Rs.1,23,390/ to the Opposite Party institution on 17.8.2015. On 19.8.2015 Opposite Party agreed the decision of the complainant and returned the original documents and asked them to come after 15 days to collect the refund amount and it is within the knowledge of the Opposite Parties. On perusal of Ex.C5 it reveals that at the time of paying the fees on 17.8.2015 the documents mentioned in the Ex.C5 is pending hence it is clear that the admission process not completed. Since the admission process not completed the seat availed by the complainant remained vacant. In the present case Opposite Party not disputed that the seat vacated by the complainant was not filled. As per Opposite Parties documents the Ex.R2 unconditional bond the admission of complainant was under the management quota on mutually agreed terms and conditions for admission to the course which are not illegal but it is not contained any seal or signature only contention that as per Ex.R2 fee is not refundable. Further Ex.R1, R3 and R4 documents it self made clear that the complainant paid in prescribed fee for the first year of the course only and not the entire courses. After perusal of the Ex.R1, R3 and R4 documents produced by the Opposite Party that the said documents neither contained the original seal of the institution nor the signature of the concerned authority. Hence the documents produced by the Opposite Party is not benefited for case in our hand. The Opposite Party produced reported ruling III (2014) CPJ 27 National Commission.
In this case admission course left midstream refund of fee denied Alleged deficiency in service but the case referred is totally deferent from case in our hand. In the present case admission process is not completed hence the reported ruling filed not connected to this case. Another ruling reported in 2013 3 CPR (National Commission) 26 reads thus, Complaint is not entitled to seek refund of admission fee only on the ground of severe financial crises. In this present case as a result of the with drawl by the petitioner from the seat allotted, the seat would remain vacant for a period of four years. Hence no case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed the above ruling produced by the Opposite Party is not benefited to the case in our hand therefore the point No. 1 and 2 in affirmative. In view of the above discussion since the admission process not completed the Opposite Parties retaining amount of the complainant is not justified and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party no.1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,23,390/ along with 9% of interest from the date of admission i.e. on 17.8.2015 till the date of payment and also pay Rs.25,000/ as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/ as cost of the litigation expenses.
In the result, accordingly we pass the following Order.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,23,390/ along with 9% of interest from 17.8.2015 till the date of payment and also pay Rs.25,000/ as compensation and Rs.5,000/ as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 11 directly dictated by Member to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 18th April 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Yash G Suvarna
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Fee paid challan copy bearing No.0001918 dated 17.8.2015.
Ex.C2: Mess advance paid bill earing No.0030180 dated 17.8.2015.
Ex.C3: Hostel fee paid challan bearing No.0030179 dated 17.8.2015.
Ex.C4: Application fee paid challan copy bearing no.0000645 dated 17.8.2015
Ex.C5: Acknowledgement for the documents received by the Opposite Party at the time of paying the fee.
Ex.C6: copy of the public notice issued by the university grants commission dated 23.4.2007.
Ex.C7: copy of the notice issued by the university grants commission to the vice chancellor, Vishveswaraiah technological university
date 11.1.2016.
Ex.C8: copy of the circular issued vishveswaraiah technological University to principals of all the engineering college affiliated
to the VTU Belgam dated 16.10.2015]
Ex.C9: copy of the remind circular issued by the vishveswaraiah technological university to principals of all the engineering
college affiliated to the VTU Belgam dated 18.2.2016
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1: Dr. Peter Fernandes, Principal.
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: Admission application of the complainant.
Ex.R2: undertaking bond.
Ex.R3: Letter dated 19.8.2015 of the complainant.
Ex.R4: Candidate resume given by the complainant.
Dated: 18.4.2017 MEMBER
