BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31st MARCH 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 281/2012
(Admitted on 15.09.2012)
Cirin T. Uthupp,
S/o Uthuppa,
Aged 26 years,
Thanikkel House,
East Bazar, pazhanji Post
Thrissur, Kerala State. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. Vinaya Kumar)
VERSUS
1. The Chairman/President
Laxmi Memorial College of Nursing,
A.J.Towers. Balmatta,
Mangalore-575002.
2. The Principal,
Laxmi Memorial College of Nursing,
A.J. Towers. Balmatta,
Mangalore-575002. ……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 & 2:Sri. A.Amrith Kini)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act as against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant had obtained admission to Opposite Parties college for M.Sc Nursing course in the month of June 2010 and paid Rs. 1,34,635/- (Rupees one lakh thirty four thousand six hundred thirty five only) towards admission and tuition fee. Apart from that complainant also paid Rs. 2,00,000/- as donation. It is stated that on account of ill-health the complainant was constrained to leave the college after attending few classes. It is stated that the complainant has expressed his inability to continue the studies on health ground before Opposite Party and requested to refund the fee amount. It is stated that at the time of handing over the original certificate, the Opposite party forced to write in the letter dated 3.07.2010 undertaking that she is not going to demand refund of fees. Left with no other option complainant forced to right that sentence. It is stated that the opposite parties received back all the original payment receipts from the complainant and further stated that the opposite parties has filled the seat which was vacated by the complainant and not suffered any financial loss. Since the Opposite Party failed to refund the amount, the complainant issued a legal notice to comply the demand made therein. Since the opposite parties failed to comply the demand the complainant filed the above complaint U/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the act) seeking direction from this FORA to the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 1,34,635/- along with interest and, damages and cost of the proceedings.
- 1. Version notice served to the opposite parties by R.P.A.D. The Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version stated that on account of discontinuing the studies Opposite Parties suffered great loss in as much as they already spent huge amounts and they cannot take any other student in the middle of admission year. It is stated that as per the procedure after receiving the fees, opposite party has already remitted the amounts to the university. The opposite party have made all preparations for the training, tuition and coaching and also spent for providing good facilities.
It is further stated that the complaint had joined the college and studied for many days and was not able to cope up to the subject. Out of complainant own wish he has discontinued the course and there is no deficiency what so ever and sought for dismissal of complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Dr. Cirin T.Uthupp (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C7. One Dr. Larissa Martha, principal (RW-1) filed counter affidavit answered the interrogatories served on him.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i) and (ii): Negative
Point No. (iii) and (iv). As per the final order.
IV. 1. POINTS No. (i) to (iii):
The facts which are admitted that the complainant had obtained admission in opposite parties college for M.Sc. Nursing course in the month of June 2010 and paid Rs. 1,34,635/-.
Now the points are in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, complainant contended that due to ill-health he had to discontinue the course and requested to refund the fee amount paid by him, but the Opposite Party institution refused to refund the amount. Hence came up with this complaint.
Opposite Parties on the contrary contended that the complainant withdrawn voluntarily and not produced any documentary evidence to prove the contentions raised by him. He had discontinued the course on his own wish and not on account of deficiency of service. The seat allotted to the complainant left vacant and the opposite party suffered loss.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, there was no denial to provide service agreed upon by the Opposite Parties. When that being so, the entire burden rested upon the complainant to establish that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party institution. Except the self-serving statement of the complainant no material evidence placed on record to prove the allegation of the complainant made in the complaint. No convincing material evidence produced before the FORA to show that he is suffering from ill-health and not able to continue the course. Further it is admitted fact that complainant discontinued the institution because of his own reasons. There is no denial of service on the part of the opposite parties institution. The complainant well aware that the opposite party instituions is not government institution, on the other hand it is a private institution running without aid from the government. Students seeking admissions to professional private colleges like opposite party institution should think of the implications before seeking admission. The students as well as the parents fair enough to understand the consequences. Because every private institutions issued with the prospectus to the students before seeking admission. The students as well as their parents invariably signed the declarations and matured enough to understand the implications as stated supra. Even in the above complaint the complainant as well as his parents invariably signed the declarations before seeking admission and also written /issued undertaking letter i.e. Ex C-4. Therefore the complainant and his parents are bound by the information supplied at the time of admission and also undertaking letter given by them. As we know that the cancellation of admission is received before or after the start of academic session obviously seat cannot be filled by the institute. Opposite party institution produced documents i.e. Ex R-6 letter dated 03.07.2010 and Annexure-B list of student admitted to M.Sc Nursing (Medical surgical Nursing five students) It clearly shows that in the year academic 2010-11 there was only five student admitted to M.Sc Nursing. That means the seat vacated by the complainant is not filled. Since the complainant as well as their parents invariably signed the admission form before seeking admission to institute, they are not entitled refund fee paid by them. Because there is a clear prohibition contained in the prospectus against the refund of fee deposited at the time of admission. Thus it is evident that this fora cannot issue a mandamus to the opposite party institution for refund of fee to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party institution in this complaint.
However, In a case, Navdeep Singh Vs I.I.T.T College of Engineering, Village Polewal District Nawanshahar and Ors ( on Vol. CXXXIV (2003-2) Punjab Law Report) in which it was observed in paragraph 6 as under
The petitioner has neither controverted the ascertain contained in the written statement of respondent No. 1 that as per the prospectus issued by the University tuition fee and charges deposited at the time of admission are not refundable nor he has challenged the legality of that provision. Therefore, in the fact of the prohibition contained in the prospectus against the refund of fee deposited at the time of admission, the court cannot issue a mandamus to the respondents for refund of fee to the petitioner.
In another case, Rai Singh Vs. The MaharashiDayanand University & Ors. (VOLCVII-(1994-2) The Punjab Law Reporter) In which it was observed in paragraph 10 as under:-
10. 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 and in any case these forms are invariably signed by their parents/guardians and it is so in the present case. 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. For what has been noticed, the view taken in Madhavika Khurana’s case (supra) cannot stand scrutiny and consequently the same is over-ruled.
ALOK JAIN Vs. GURU GOBIND SINGH & ANR. 2015) CPJ 112 (NC)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1) (g), 15-Education-Non-refund of counselling fee-Appellant got admission in Opposite Party No. 1 University and Opposite Party No. 2 College and deposited counselling fee along with security fee-Meantime, appellant got admission elsewhere-Respondent returned only security amount and refused to refund counselling amount-Complaint before District Forum filed-Dismissed-Hence present appeal Appellant attended classes for one month and then applied for refund of fee, because he had obtained admission elsewhere-since, he applied after cut-off date as given in admission brochure, appellant was according to terms and conditions, disentitled to reimbursement of fee.
FIIT JEE LTD Vs. S. BALAVIGNESH III(2015) CPJ 112 (NC)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 21(b)-Education-Admission-Coaching discontinued due to illness-Refund of fee denied-Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission partly allowed appeal-hence revision-As per declaration contained in enrollment form, student taking admission is not entitled to refund of any part of fee paid by him irrespective of ground on which he withdraws admission-Where seat vacated on account of withdrawal by student during currency of course remains vacant and no other student is admitted against vacant seat, refusal of coaching institute to refund fee cannot be said to be unfair trade practice.
However these judgments are applicable to the case on hand. The placing reliance on these citations and after giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions and the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded herein above.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of MARCH -2016.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW-1 : Cirin T.Uthupp Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex. C1 : Copy of the Receipt dated 21.06.2010, No. 2573.
Ex. C2 : Copy of the Receipt dated 06.01.2010, No. 1730.
Ex. C3 : Copy of the Receipt dated 21.06.2019,
number is not visible.
Ex. C4 : Copy of the letter dated 03.07.2010
Ex. C5 : Copy of the letter dated 26.07.2010.
Ex. C6: Copy of the notice dated 18.09.2010.
Ex. C7: Copy of the reply notice dated 29.09.2010.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW-1 : Dr. Larissa Martha- Opposite parties.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex. R1 : 07.12.2010 –True copy of the letter issued
by Indian Nursing council, New Delhi-110002.(Annexure-B).
Ex. R2 : Name of the student (Annexure-B).
Ex. R3 : Admission Statement (Annexure-C).
Ex. R4 : Chellen copies of fees remittance
(Annexure-D).
Ex. R5 : Attendence Register (Annexure-E).
Dated: 31.03.2016. PRESIDENT
31.03.2016.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of MARCH 2016)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
