BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DSTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 30^th July 2016

PRESENT

           SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   HON’BLE PRESIDENT

           SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI     :   MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.266/2014

(Admitted on 18.07.2014)

1. B.G. Raghavendra S/o

    B.V. Gurudev,

    Aged about 16 years,

    Minor represent through Her N/G father

    B.V.Gurudev

2. B.V. Gurudev S/o B. Venkateshappa,

    Aged about 49 years,

    Both are residing at

    Janatha Colony, 2^nd Cross,

    Behind TAT Mill, Challakere town,

    Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.

                                                                         ….. COMPLAINANTS 

(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri.M.S.K)

VERSUS

1. The Principal,

    Alva’s Pre University College,

    Sundari Anand Alva Campous,

    Vidyagiri, Mudabidare,

    Mangalure Taluk,

    DAKSHINA KANNADA District,

    Karnatak 574227.

2. Alva’s Education Foundation (R)

    Represent by its Chairman/ Secretary,

    By name Dr. M. Mohan Alva,

    Office at: Mudabidare,

    Mangalure Taluk,

    DAKSHINA KANNADA District,

    Karnatak 574227                             …...........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. D.R.K)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party institution claiming certain reliefs. 

  The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant stated that Opposite Party Institution notified in paper inviting for admission for various courses assuring that they will provide good facilities for the students to pursue their Pre-University education in the said college.  The complainant got admission for PCMB course and paid Rs.59,400 as admission and hostel fees.  Apart from the above said fee the complainant paid 7,000 in cash separately. It is stated that as per the direction of the Opposite Party Institution the complainant paid fees and received allotment letter and instructed to report to the college begging  from 10.6.2013.

The complainant reported to the hostel dated 9-6-2013 and he has been allotted room No 327 at 3^rd floor in Rajathadri block.  There were 1500 students accommodated in the said block. The complainant were stayed in the said hostel for 5 days and felt like living the college.  It is stated that  the treatment given by the faculty of the hostel was uncomfortable.  Because of the uncomfortable living condition accommodated by the Opposite Parties the complainant could not able to continue the studies.    Therefore the complainant demanded the refund of fee paid to the Opposite parties.  But the Opposite Parties failed to refund the amount.

Feeling aggrieved by the above, the above  Complaint filed before this Forum under Section 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 the entire money collected from the complainants and also sought for compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.      1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by R.P.A.D. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel filed version stated that, the complainants voluntarily withdrawn from the course offered by the Opposite Party not on account of any deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint.  It is stated that the opposite party institution is a private trust managing several educational institution run without any Government Aid.  The major portion of the money that is collected in the form of fees are utilized for the said purpose.  In view of the above facts every student as  well as his parent/guardian will be informed in advance as to the non-refund of fee paid in advance as a condition precedent for admission and only on their undertaking to such stipulations provide admission to the applicant intending to pursue education in the institution.  The said stipulation is made only to avoid unforeseen financial burden to the institutions and also to spend for the projects of the entire year.  The refund of fee paid by every student unwilling to avail the service on account of his own private reasons not on the part of the Opposite parties deficiency or whatsoever.

 It is further stated that the complainants voluntarily agreed to abide by the stipulation of the institutions for the admission.  Therefore, non-refund of the advance fees paid is estopped from claiming back the fees paid after voluntarily withdrawn from the college, the seat availed by the Complainant remained unfilled.

          3.  It is further stated that Rajathadri Hostel building is a multistoried building with spacious rooms, adequate provisions for drinking water, toilet and bathrooms like other hostel buildings.  They have well equipped kitchen and dining hall at the basement. Three to five students are accommodated in each room depending upon the room’s width.  Two warden and a superviser are provided to each floor to cater the needs of hosteliers.  Free medical facilities are provided to hosteliers and round the clock medical facility is provided to hosteliers. Hence the complaint averments that the rooms are congested and without basic facilities is baseless false allegations.

                   5.  It is stated that Over 16000 students are pursuing their education and over 12000 students amongst them are provided with hostel facility by the Institutions of Alva s Education Foundation without there being any grievances by any of them.  It is stated that there is no deficiency of service hence prayed for dismissel of complaint.

III.     1. In support of the above complaint, Complainant No.2 examined as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked under the Ex.C series detailed in the annexure here below. Opposite Parties also examined and filed their counter affidavits and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked under the Ex.R series detailed in the annexure here below.

In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainants proved that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
2. If so, whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed?
3. 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)          : Negative.

                    Point No.(ii) to (iii): As per the final order.             

REASONS

IV.     1.  POINTS No. (i) to (iii):

In the above complainant it is admitted that the complainant No.1 got admission to opposite party institution and paid the fees as stated in his complaint and there is no dispute with regard to the payment of fees and acknowledgment of the same.

          Now the points are in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, complainant contended that the opposite party accommodated hostel in Rajathadri block. There were 1500 students were accommodated in the said block, in each room allotted 6 students and the rooms are congested without having any basic facilities such as sanitation, drinking water, bathroom and kitchen.  And also contended that the treatment given by faculty of the hostel was uncomfortable to live human beings.  It is also contented that without accommodating better living condition in the hostel and college made the complainant to discontinue the course.  On account of the deficiency on the part of the Opposite party institution the complainant could not continue his studies in Opposite Party institution and thereafter claimed refund of fees, the Opposite Party institution refused to refund the amount. Hence came up with this complaint.

          Opposite Parties on the contrary contended that the complainants were withdrawn voluntarily and their institution is a private institution has no government aid.  Further contended that    on account of non availing of the seat they have actually suffered loss etc., and denied the deficiency of service. 

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 laid upon the complainants to establish that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party institution. Except the self serving statement of the complainants no such material evidence placed on record to prove the allegations of the complainants made in the above complaint.

Now the points for consideration is that, on perusal of the material evidence placed before us reveals that the complainant No.1 discontinued the institution because of his own reasons.  The complainant No.1 and his parents well aware that the opposite party instituions is not government institution.   On the other hand it is 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. Even in the above complaints the complainant No.1 as well as his parents invariably signed the declarations before seeking admission. Therefore the complainant No.1 and his parents are bound by the information supplied at the time of admission. 

 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.  Since the complainant as well as his 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 complainants. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party institution in all the complaints.        

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 complaints are liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded herein above.

V.       In the result, we pass the following

ORDER

The complaints are 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.

(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th July 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 Complainants:

CW1 B.V. Gurudev 2^nd    Complainant .

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant

Ex C1  Representation given by complainant dated: 21.10.2013,

               to opposite parties.

Ex C2 Xerox copy of the reply notice dated: 16.11.2013 issue

           by Principal, Alva s pre university college, Mudabidare.

Ex C3 Xerox copy of the seat allotment slip issued by Principal,  

           Alva’s pre-university college, Moodbidri.

Ex C4 Xerox copy of the fee paid challan dated: 8.05.2013 and

            7.6.2013.

Ex C5 Copy of the letter issued by the 2^nd Complainant to

             President  & Principal.

Ex C6 Postal Receipt 1

Ex C7 Postal Receipt 2.

Ex C8  Letter dated 16.11.13 issued by Opposite Party

Ex C9 Seat allotment Slip.

Ex C10 & C11 Receipts  for Payment (2 in numbered)

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1: Principal, Alva s P.U. College & Others.

Documents produced  on behalf of the Opposite Party

Ex R1: College Prospectus.

Ex R2: Copy of the Application No.20997 dtd.8.5.2013.

Ex R3: Copy of the Bond dtd.8.5.2013.

Ex R4: Copy of the undertaking dtd.8.5.2013.

Ex R5: Copy of the reply dtd. 16.11.2013.

Dated:  30.07.2016                                          PRESIDENT