BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.3 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.48 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM EAST GODAVARI AT KAKINADA
Between:
1. The Principal
Aditya Institute of Pharmaceutical
Sciences & Research, Surampalem
Peddapuram, East Godavari District
2. Aditya Institute of Pharmaceutical
Sciences & Research Surampalem
Peddapuram, rep. by its Chairman
N.Sesha Reddy, age 50 years,
C/o Aditya Educational Institutions
Srinagar, Kakinada, E.G.Dist.
3. Dr.K.V.R.N.S.Ramesh S/o Ramakrishna Rao
Age 45 years, Principal, Aditya Institute of Pharmaceutical
Sciences & Research, Surampalem
Peddapuram, East Godavari District
Appellants/opposite parties’ no.1 to 3
A N D
1. Alapati Prashanth S/o Subba Rao
age 19 years, Student
R/o Duggiralavari Street, Kakinada
East Godavari District
Respondent/complainant
2. The Registrar,
Andhra University, Waltair
Visakhapatnam
Respondents/Opposite party no.4
Counsel for the Appellants Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri G.Ramgopal
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Sri M.V.Raja Ram
F.A.No.121 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.48 OF 2007
Between
Alapati Prashanth S/o Subba Rao
age 20 years, Student
R/o Duggiralavari Street, Kakinada
East Godavari District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Principal
Aditya Institute of Pharmaceutical
Sciences & Research, Surampalem
Peddapuram, East Godavari District
2. Aditya Instutute of Pharmaceutical
Sciences & Research Surampalem
Peddapuram, rep. by its Chairman
N.Sesha Reddy, age 50 years,
C/o Aditya Educational institutions
3. Dr.K.V.R.N.S.Ramesh S/o Ramakrishna Rao
Age 45 years, principal, Aditya Institute of Pharaceutical
Sciences & Research, Surampalem
Peddapuram, East Godavari District
4. The Registrar,
Andhra University, Waltair
Visakhapatnam
(R3 and 4 are added as per the orders
in IA NO.211/2007 dt.12.3.2008)
Respondent/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant Sri G.Ramgopal
Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 Sri M.V.Rajaram
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 filed the appeal challenging the legality of the order passed by the District Forum whereas the complainant has filed appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of felicity of expression the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint.
3. The complainant seeking admission under management quota in the opposite party no.1 college paid a sum of `1,35,000/- (`60,000/- towards donation and `75,000/- towards fee for the academic year) on 28.11.2005 and joined the college. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 having been aware of the fact that the complainant absented to classes for some days, collected the examination fee and processed his examination application along with the other students and got his hall ticket received from the university. Having collected the examination fee and got received his hall ticket, the opposite party no.1 declined to send the complainant to the year end university examination. At the time of admission the opposite parties have taken the originals of SSC marks memo, intermediate marks memo, intermediate pass certificate, inter TC and CC of the complainant. The complainant and his father requested the opposite parts to readmit the complainant in the 1st year of 4 year B.Pharmacy course in the subsequent academic year 2006-2007 for which the opposite parties demanded to pay `1,35,000/- and to pay the tuition fee of `75,000/- each year. Being unable to pay huge sum, the complainant requested to return the documents, TC and CC to enable him to join in other college. The opposite parties demanded to pay `75,000/-per year for returning the documents. The opposite parties neither did readmit the complainant nor give his TC and CC thereby the complainant lost two academic years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. The complainant got issued notice dated 27.10.2006 to the opposite party no.1.
4. The opposite party no.2 filed counter which was adopted by the opposite partyno.1 contending that the complainant is most irregular in his attending the classes. The required minimum percentage of attendance to recommend the candidate to attend the examination is 66.66. The complainant secured 58.82. He was detained for the academic year 2005-2006. The complainant has not paid the full fee for the year 2006-2007 and demanded for return of the certificates. Any student will not be allowed to take the certificates in the middle of the course unless he pays the entire fee for the four years duration. The complainant and his father have not submitted the originals of SSC Marks Memorandum, TC and CC and other documents.
5. The opposite partyno.4 filed counter contending that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no.4 and the fee was collected by the opposite partyno.1 and not by this opposite party.
6. The complainant filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the opposite parties, Exs.B1 to B11 were marked.
7. The District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to pay `60,000/- collected towards donation and to pay `10,000/- as damages together with costs of `5,000/- and directed the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to issue fresh transfer certificate without the words “not regular to classes”.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties no.1 to 3 have filed the appeal contending that the letter from the fourth opposite party to the complainant is not applicable to the present context in view of the fact the situation prevailed therein was prior to commencement of the academic year as also the counseling was in progress and in the present case the complainant has got admission and studied for one year with the opposite parties no.1 to 3. It is contended that the allotment of seats modalities rules and regulations of admission are governed by the university and the opposite parties no.1 to 3 have no control on the aspect and the decision to collect the fees for the remaining period is as per the directions of the university and that the first opposite party accepted the examination fees on a specific undertaking that the complainant would attend the college regularly till the commencement of the examination to recoup the deficiency of attendance and against the terms of undertaking the complainant did not attend the college.
9. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed the appeal contending that the amount awarded is inadequate and he is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,90,000/-.
10. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service in not making payment of the amount awarded by the District Forum?
2) To what relief?
11. POINT NO.1 It is not in dispute that the complainant secured seat under management quota on payment of `1,35,000/- on 28.11.2005 and he joined the course in the last week of November 2005. According to the complainant the opposite parties had not permitted to appear for the examination even after collecting the examination fees and issuing the hall ticket to him. The contention of the opposite party no.1 is that the required minimum percentage of attendance to recommend the candidate to attend the examination is 66.66% whereas the complainant had putforth only 58.82% and thereby he was detained for the academic year 2005-2006. The complainant had not paid the full amount of fees for the year 2006-2007.
12. During pendency of the complaint the complainant has filed application I.A.No.87 of 2007 for return of the certificates such as TC, CC etc. The opposite parties had not returned the certificates to the complainant. The District forum has allowed the application on 3.7.2007 directing the opposite parties to return the certificates to the complainant. Against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties filed Revision R.P.No.109 of 2007 before this commission which had confirmed the order of the District forum on 30.7.2007. The opposite parties have preferred revision R.P.No.3277 of 2007 against the order of this Commission before the National Commission. The National Commission has dismissed the revision. The complainant has filed execution application in E.P.No.20 of 2007 and then the opposite parties returned the certificates to the complainant on 6.12.2007.
13. The complainant was irregular in attending the classes and there was shortfall in his attendance which could not be recouped during the academic year 2005-2006. The complainant has not shown any cause for not recouping the shortfall of attendance despite the fact that he had given undertaking in favour of the opposite party no.1 that he would attend the classes regularly till commencement of the examination. The complainant was detained for the academic year 2005-2006 on account of shortfall of attendance. The complainant has sought for return of his certificates and refund of the amount paid by him at the time of joining the opposite party no.1 college. The number of students admitted for the first year of 4 year B.Pharmacy course of the opposite party n.1 college is 60 and the students attended for the examination were 58 whereas the absentee students who include the complainant were not permitted to attend the examination. It is true that the complainant had paid the examination fees on 18.2.2006. The complainant contends that having received the examination fees from him the opposite partyno.1 should have allowed him to attend the examination whereas the opposite parties contend that with the hope that the complainant would recoup the shortfall of attendance till the commencement of examination as there was time gap of four months from the date of collection of the fees till the date of examination, they had collected the fees from the complainant. It is for the university to permit the candidate to attend the examination and not the opposite partyno.1 college.
14. It is contended on behalf the opposite parties no.1 to 3 that the candidates who have not paid the fees are not permitted to take back the certificates as also not entitled to refund of the fees as there was no possibility to fill up the seats by admitting the other candidates till the end of entire duration of four years. It is true if the candidate leaves the institute just after the admission or some time thereafter in the same academic year, the college would substitute the seat vacated with some other student and if the student leaves the college after completing one year, it is difficult for the college to go for some other student to fill up the seat vacated by the former student. It is in the realm of the discretion of the University to permit a student to appear at the examination.
15. The complainant has paid an amount of `1,35,000/- out of which `60,000/- was collected by the opposite party no.1 towards donation. The complainant has opted to leave the opposite partyno.1 college on his own accord and according to the opposite parties on the premise of covering his lapse relating to irregular attending of the classes. The opposite party no.4 has issued letter 30.6.2003 to all the principals of AU Affiliated college that the university had taken a decision to issue transfer certificate and original certificates of those candidates who wish to pursue studies in other universities subject to the condition that they should pay the remaining fees of the entire course. The complainant has to pay the amount relating to the left over period of the course. Instead the complainant has demanded the amount paid by him at the time of seeking admission with the opposite party no.1 college. Taking into consideration of the circumstances, we do not find the direction of the District Forum to hold the complainant entitled to the amount of `60,000/- as also an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of damages and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs is not sustainable.
16. The complainant is a student having studied for one year with the opposite party no.1 college and on account of his incompatibility with the circumstances of the opposite party no.1 college, he opted for leaving the opposite partyno.1 college in order to pursue the remaining period of the course in some other college. The universities Grant Commission has issued Public Notice directing the college to refund the amount minus processing fees in case student opts to leave the college before actual starting of academic session. The complainant has to pay `75,000/- towards tuition fees every year for a period of four years. The complainant has paid a sum of `1,35,000/-. The opposite party no.4 has issued letter dated 2.11.2005 to the Principals of College affiliated to Andhra university that fee payable to the university in respect of the students of II and III year degree courses who have discontinued their studies cannot be returned. The findings returned by the District Forum in regard to the refund of the amount compensation etc. are liable to be set aside.
17. In the result the appeal F.A.No.3 of 2009 is allowed. The order of the District forum is set aside. Consequently the complaint and the F.A.No.121 of 2010 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.22.12.2011
KMK*
