Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/89/2015

N.Priyadarshini d/o N.Venkateswara Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Principal, Audi Sankara College of Engineering and Technology - Opp.Party(s)

A.Chenchaiah

18 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

Date of Filing     :09-09-2015

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:18-08-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Friday, this the  18^th  day of   AUGUST, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

                        Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com., B.L., LL.M., Member

 

C.C.No.89/2015

 

1.	N. Priyadarshini, D/o.N. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 23 years, 20/135, Rajagari Street, Mulapet, Nellore-3.
2.	D. Kuppu Swamy, S/o.Penchalaiah, Hindu, Retired Sanitary Inspector, 20/135, Rajagari Street, Mulapet, Nellore-3.                                                                   ..… Complainants

Vs.

 

1.	The Principal, Audi Sankara College of Engineering and Technology, N.H.5, Bypass Road, Gudur, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.
2.	The Secretary and Correspondent, Audi Sankara College of Engineering     and Technology, N.H.5, Bypass Road, Gudur, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                                              ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 11-08-2017 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri A. Chenchaiah, advocate for the complainant and                                                           Sri K. Rajagopal Reddy,  advocate for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  SRI Sk. MOHD. ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

     The  complainants filed this  complaint against the opposite parties  under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  directing  the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest  at the rate of 18% p.a.  to the complainants from the date of filing of  the case i.e., from 07-09-2015 till the date of realization, to direct the opposite parties to return original certificates i.e., S.S.C. Marks Memorandum, Intermediate Marks Memorandum, Transfer Certificate, Study Certificate, Conduct Certificate and other certificates which  are belong to the 1^st complainant, for  grant of Rs.50,000/- towards  damages for the mental agony caused to the complainants and by granting costs of Rs.5,000/-  and submits to allow the  complaint.   

 

            2.         The  brief  averments of the complaint are as follows:

 

                        The 1^st complainant joined in Computer Science and Engineering  branch  on 25-09-2008  in opposite parties college having  roll No.08G21A0560   and  a  2^nd complainant is the  grand father of the  1^st complainant.  The complainants paid a sum of Rs.90,000/-  towards  tuition fees and Rs.35,000/- towards caution  deposit in opposite parties  college and at the time of  admission, the 1^st complainant submitted S.S.C. Marks Memorandum, Intermediate Marks Memorandum, Transfer Certificate, Study and Conduct Certificates   and other certificates in original to  opposite parties. The complainant submits that the 1^st complainant left  the college  on 14-12-2008  as the studies in opposite parties  college is not up to the  expectation of 1^st complainant. The complainants requested   the opposite parties for  return of the original documents submitted  by the  complainants and  for refund of  the fees paid by the complainants  and the 2^nd complainant  requested the opposite parties  orally as well as by sending letters dated 26-12-2011  and 30-01-2013  but as the  opposite parties failed to return the documents and failed to refund the fee,  the 1^st complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 06-03-2013 and having received the notice, the opposite parties gave  reply dated  16-03-2013 with false  averments and hence as the  opposite parties  committed deficiency of service  in  not returning the original documents and failed to refund the fee paid by the 1^st complainant,  the complainants filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties  for return of the original     certificates and for refund of the fee amount of Rs.1,25,000/-,  costs of Rs.5,000/-  and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony to the complainants and submits  to allow the   complaint.

 

            3.         The 1^st opposite party  filed  counter and the same was adopted by the opposite party No.2  with the  following averments: 

 

                        The 1^st complainant joined  in the  college  on  25-09-2008  and left the  college on 14-12-2008. During 1^st year without intimating  to the  opposite parties and  her seat was kept vacant for the  remaining years duration of the course.   Thus,  the opposite party sustained  a loss of Rs.2,88,600/-  due to  the  conduct of the  1^st complainant  and the 1^st complainant   joined in 1^st  year B.Tech course in the Computer Science  and  the Engineering  branch  in Audisankara College of Engineering  and Technology on 25-09-2008  and  left the college   on 14-12-2008 without intimating the same to the  opposite parties.  The   Commissioner for   Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh  allotted 36 seats  to be filled in  management quota in computer science branch and  84 seats in convener quota and   a total seats are allotted in  Computer Science  and  Engineering branch.  The 1^st complainant  was admitted in the college under management quota and tuition fee is fixed by the Government   for management quota is Rs.91,700/-  payable each year.  Special fee payable is Rs.7,500/- for  1^st year,  Rs.4,500/-  for  the years  2, 3 and 4 and the management has to remit  special  fee amount in the account of   Jawaharlal  Nehru Technology Institute, Ananthapur.  The 1st complainant was appointed   in B.Tech.  Computer Science and Technology  branch on 25-09-2008 under admission No.08G21A0560 and the 1^st complainant paid a sum of Rs.99,200/- and the college management  informed the same to the  JNTU authorities, Ananthapur on 25-09-2008   and the admissions were closed on 25-09-2008 and the opposite parties is prohibited to admit any candidate in the place of 1^st complainant and  the seat will be continue  to be  vacant  from 14-12-2008 for the remaining three academic years.   The 1^st complainant knowing signed in the agreement paper by giving an undertaking , 1^st complainant  has to pay fees  for the remaining three years  and the  1^st  complainant has to pay  a sum of Rs.2,75,100/- towards  the tuition fee  for  the remaining three years  and special fee ofRs.13,500/- in total Rs.2,88,600/-  and as the 1^st complainant left the college, the opposite  parties were forced   to  kept the seat vacant for the  three years and if  the 1^st complainant paid the fees of Rs.2,88,600/-, the 1^st complainant is entitled to take back the certificates and hence  the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties is not maintainable  and  submits  for the dismissal of the complaint.

 

            4.         On behalf of  complainant P.Ws. 1 and  2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5  were marked.

 

5.         On behalf of the opposite parties R.W.1  was  examined and Exs.B1 to B6  were marked.

 

6.         The 1^st   complainant was examined as P.W.1 and  2^nd complainant  examined  as P.W.2  and the opposite party No.1 was examined as R.W.1. 

 

7.         Ex.A1 is the notice dated 26-12-2011 issued by 2^nd complainant.  Ex.A2 is the  notice dated 30-01-2013 issued by the 2^nd complainant.  Ex.A3 is the reply  notice dated 16-03-2013  issued on behalf of opposite parties.  Ex.A4 is the  office copy of the legal notice issued to the opposite parties, dated 14-08-2015 and Ex.A5 is the reply notice dated  29-08-2015 issued on behalf of  opposite parties.   Ex.B1 is the  Student’s Bio-Data.  Ex.B2 is the  legal notice dated 06-03-2013 issued on behalf of complainants to the opposite parties.   Ex.B3 is the notice dated 16-03-2013.  Ex.B4 is the  legal notice dated 14-08-2015 issued on behalf of the complainants.  Ex.B5 is the notice dated 29-08-2015 issued  to opposite parties. 

 

8.         Written arguments  filed on behalf of both parties.

 

9.         Arguments on behalf of learned counsels for both parties heard.

 

 

            10.       Now the points for consideration are:

 

1.  Whether the  1^st complainant is entitled for refund of the fee amount of   

  Rs.1,25,000/- as prayed for?

2.   Whether  the 1^st complainant is entitled for  return of the original  certificates submitted by the 1^st  complainant to the opposite  parties 1 and 2 at the time of admission as prayed for?
3. To what relief, the 1^st complainant is entitled?

 

11.       POINT No.1:  The learned counsel for the  complainants submits by relying upon decisions reported  in  

(1)	R.P.No.3288/2016, dated 08-12-2016  between Modi University of Sciences and Technology, Rajasthan and another Vs. Megha Gupta, Jaipur, Rajasthan  before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  New Delhi

 

(2)	Sehgal School of Competition Vs.  Dalbir Singh (N.C.D.R.C.)  in R.P.No.813/2009 on the file of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2009 (3) CPJ page-33.
(3)	The Registrar, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh   and  another Vs.  Janjanam Jagdeesh, Andhra Pradesh in R.P.No.3926/2009 before  the  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
(4)	Ramdeo Baba Kamala Nehru  Engineering College Vs. Sanjay Kumar (S.C.) in Civil Appeal No.6441/1998 before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in  2002 (10) SCC-487
(5)	The Principal, College of Science and Technology, Andhra University, Visakahapatnam and another Vs. Janjanam  Jagadesh,   Prakasam District in F.A.No.616/2006 against C.D.no.177/2005, District Forum, Prakasam at Ongole.
(6)	S. Muthukamatchi Vs.  the Director of Technical Education, Anna University, Chennai and others  in W.P.(MD).No.14394/2012 on the  file of  Madhurai Bench of Madras High Court.
(7)	Principal, ST. Thomas College Vs. KU. Palomi Benerjee and another reported in  III (2011) CPJ 1 before the Chattisgarh State Consumer Disputes  Redressal Commission, Raipur

 

 that  as the opposite parties college is not up to the expectation of the 1^st complainant.  She was  forced to leave the college and as there was  deficiency of service by the opposite parties, he submits to allow the complaint against the opposite parties,  to direct them  to return the fee of Rs.1,25,000/- as the 1^st complainant discontinue  her studies  on 14-12-2008  and to submits   to allow the  complaint. 

 

12.       On the other hand, the learned counsel  for the  opposite parties submits that  as the 1^st complainant herself  failed to attend  the college and  left the college on 14-12-2008.  Hence,  as the 1^st complainant failed to  pursue her studies  from the opposite parties college,  the 1^st complainant is not entitled  to claim refund of the fee paid by her in the opposite parties college and hence he submits that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and  submits for  dismissal  of the complaint against the opposite parties with costs.

 

 13.      In view of the  arguments submitted by the learned counsels for both parties and  as seen from the records, the 1^st complainant joined in B.Tech., C.S.E. course on 25-09-2008   and  left the college on  14-12-2008.  After the closure of the admissions by the opposite parties  as the 1^st complainant  herself  left the college. We are of the opinion,  she is not entitled to refund the fee  paid by her to the opposite parties. 

(1)	In FIIT JEE Limited Vs.  S. Balavignesh  reported in III (2015) CPJ  112 (NC),  page-553,

 

(2)	In FIIT JEE Limited Vs.  Sajjan Kumar Gupta reported in III (2014)  CPJ – 27 (NC),
(3)	In Madan Yadav Vs. Vinod Menon reported in  I (2013) CPJ 631 (NC) and
(4)	In Bapatla  Engineering College and another  Vs.  Thimmapuram Seshadri reported in 2006 CTJ -180 (A.P)

 

 wherein the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes   Redressal Commission, New Delhi  and the Hon’ble  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad held  that  when the  students left the college without any risk , the said person  is not entitled  to claim refund of admission fee.

 

14.       By relying upon the above decisions, we are of the opinion  that the complainants are not entitled for refund of the fee paid by them to the opposite parties as 1^st complainant herself   and left the college.  In view   of the facts of the complaint, the decisions  submitted by the  learned counsel for the complainants are not applicable to the facts of the present   case  as in the decisions  submitted by the learned counsel for the complainants  shows  that the complainant  was not withdrawn voluntarily from the  institution.  The decision submitted by the learned counsel for the  complainants reported in

	R.P.No.3288/2016, dated 08-12-2016  between Modi University of Sciences and Technology, Rajasthan and another Vs. Megha Gupta, Jaipur, Rajasthan  before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  New Delhi

that the complaint  filed by the complainant was  partly directing the opposite party for deposit of the  amount but as  seen from the contents of Ex.B1, it shows that   the 1^st complainant paid the entire  amount towards the college fee  and there is no special fee or other fees which was collected by the opposite parties.  Hence, the facts of the

decisions  submitted by the learned counsel for a complainants are not  applicable to  the facts of the present case.  By relying upon the above decisions and discussions made by us, we are of the opinion that the complainants are not entitled   for refund of the amount paid by the complainants to the opposite parties towards the admission.  By relying upon the decisions  and discussions made  above, we answers this point against the complainants   and in favour of the opposite parties   1 and 2.

 

            15.       POINT No.2:  The learned counsel for the complainants submits that  insisting  the  complainants  for payment of a sum of Rs.2,88,600/-  towards the fee for the remaining 3 years   is  unfair trade practice and hence she submits  to allow the complaint against  the opposite parties 1 and 2 directing the opposite parties 1 and  2 for return of the original certificates.

 

  16.     On the other hand,  the learned counsel for opposite parties submits by relying upon  the decision   reported in

 

R. Gowthami Vs.  the  Regional Officer, All India Council for  Technical Education, Chennai-600 006 and others reported in W.P.(MD). No.3977/2009 and M.P.(MD).No.1/2009 before the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 09-03-2012.

that as the  opposite party college is a self financed college, the complainants has to pay the  college  fees   of Rs.2,88,600/-   to the college in order to obtain the original certificates and hence the complaint filed by the complainants against the  opposite parties  is not maintainable  and submits  for dismissal of the complaint against the opposite parties. 

 

17.       The opposite parties 1 and 2   are demanding  the complainants for payment of   years fees of Rs.2,88,600/-  for obtaining   the  original certificates which were  given by the complainants  to the opposite parties at the time of the admission on 25-09-2008.  The insisting  of the complainants  for payment of the entire  3 years fees is amounts to unfair trade practice.  In

 

Islamic Academy of Education Vs.  State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2003  SC 3724.

 

 wherein the Hon’ble apex Court held that collecting the  fees in advance for the  whole course is  amounts to unfair trade practice.

 

18.         By relying upon the above decision,  we are of the opinion  that the decisions  submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties  cannot be considered in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble  Apex Court held that collecting the fees in advance for the whole  course  is amounts to unfair trade practice.

 

19.       By relying upon the above decision, we are of the opinion  that the decisions submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties cannot be considered in view  of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.  By relying upon the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are  directed  to have  no right to retain the original document  submitted by the 1^st complainant at the time of the admission in the opposite parties college  and  hence the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 for  return of the original documents  has to be allowed.  By relying upon the decision  and the facts of the case, we answer  this point in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties              1 and 2.

 

            20.       POINT No.3:   In view of our  answering on point No.1  against the complainants and in favour of  the opposite parties  1 and 2 and in view of  our  answering on point No.2 in favour of the complainants  and against the  opposite parties 1 and 2,  the complaint filed by the complainants 1 and 2.

 

            21.    In the result,  the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to return the original documents which are    handed over by the 1^st complainant at the time of the admission in C.S.E. in  B.Tech course within one month (30 days) from the date of the communication of the order.

 

22.       The claim of the complainants  for the  refund of the  fee of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty five thousand only) is hereby  dismissed.

 

 23.      The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards damages for causing mental agony  to the complainants

 

24.       The opposite parties 1 and 2  are also directed to pay costs  of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainants. 

 

25.       The opposite parties  1 and 2 are granted one month ( 30 days) time to comply the order from the date of the communication of the order.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the 18^th day of  AUGUST, 2017.

 

              Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                            Sd/-

      MEMBER                                MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainants

 

P.W.1  -	14-03-2016	Kum.N. Priyadarshini, D/o.N. Venkateswara Rao,   Nellore-3  (Affidavit  filed).
P.W.2  -	14-03-2016	Sri D. Kuppuswamy, S/o.Penchalaiah,  Nellore-3 (Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

29-04-2016

Sri V. Krishna Kumar, S/o.Vaidyanadhan, Working as Principal in Audisankara College of Engineering and Technology, Gudur. (Affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANTS

 

Ex.A1  -	26-12-2011	Letter from   2nd complainant to the  1st opposite party.
Ex.A2  -	30-01-2013	Letter from   2nd complainant to the  1st opposite party.
Ex.A3  -	16-03-2013	Letter from opposite party to the complainants advocate Sri S.V.Koteswara Rao.
Ex.A4  -	14-08-2015	Legal notice from complainants advocate Smt.G.V.L.Nagamani to the  opposite parties alongwith  two registered post receipts addressed to the opposite parties.
Ex.A5  -	29-08-2015	Letter from opposite party to the complainants advocate Smt. G.V.L. Nagamani.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1  -	25-09-2008	Student’s Bio-Data (UG Courses) in favour of 1st complainant issued by the opposite parties.
Ex.B2  -	06-03-2013	Legal notice from  complainants advocate Sri V.V. Koteswara Rao to the opposite parties.
Ex.B3  -	16-03-2013	Letter from opposite party to the complainants advocate Sri S.V.Koteswara Rao.
Ex.B4  -	14-08-2015	Legal notice from complainants advocate Smt.G.V.L.Nagamani to the  opposite parties.
Ex.B5  -	29-08-2015	Letter from opposite party to the complainants advocate Smt. G.V.L. Nagamani.
Ex.B6  -		One served postal acknowledgement received from  Smt.G.V.L.Nagamani, Advocate for complainant sent by the opposite party.

 

                                                                                                                                  Id/-

                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri A. Chenchaiah, Advocate, Nellore.
2.	Sri K. Rajagopal Reddy, Advocate, 23/832, Ramesh Reddy Nagar, Nellore.

Date when free copy was issued: