BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (under Consumer Protection Act, 1986) OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FA NO.97 OF 2018 AGAINST CC NO.30 OF 2014
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, MAHABOOBNAGAR
Between:
Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions,
Rep. by its competent authority
Flat No.304, Kasetti Heights,
Besides CGR International High School
at Ayyappa Society, Madhapur,
High-tech city, Hyderabad – 81.
…Appellant/Opposite party
And
A.Chandrasekhar S/o Krishnaiah,
Aged about 48 years, Occ: Advocate,
Shop No.3, City Complex,
Near Boyapally Gate,
Mahaboobnagar.
…Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Manne Hari Babu
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Anantha Chary Kurella
CORAM :
Hon’ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal … President
and
Sri K.Ramesh … Member
Thursday, the Sixth day of December
Two thousand Eighteen
Oral Order :
***
This is an appeal filed by the Opposite party in CC No.30/2014 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Mahaboobnagar feeling aggrieved by orders dated 25.01.2018 directing it to pay Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from 02.04.2013 to till date and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint granting time of one month.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that lured by the broachings of the marketing executive by name Manikya Prabhu of Opposite party stating that their institution is imparting excellent coaching for intermediate and simultaneous training to other courses and that they are providing good accommodation and food, Complainant joined his daughter A.Deepthi in Junior Intermediate by paying an amount of Rs.10,250/- on 21.01.2013 as advance application cost and admission fee. After SSC results, his daughter refused to join the Nagole branch college of Opposite party as there was no study atmosphere, improper accommodation and coaching was not good, resulting which, he joined his daughter in Narayana College.
4) Thereafter, Complainant stated to have requested the Opposite party on 02.04.2013 for refund of amount as his daughter did not attend a single day in the college, to which, there was no response. Even the legal notice dated 09.12.2013 got issued by him evoked no response. Hence filed the present complaint praying to direct the Opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a. from 02.04.2013 to till realisation and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony besides costs of the complaint.
5) The Opposite party filed its written version admitting to have received the amount of Rs.10,250/- towards admission of A.Deepthi into their Nagole branch for the academic year 2013-2014 duly signing the admission form by agreeing the terms and conditions. Complainant never approached them seeking return of admission amount and as per terms and conditions, the same is not refundable. On receipt of notice, they explained the Complainant as to the terms and conditions of the college. The Complainant is not a consumer and hence question of deficiency of service does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and the documents Ex.A1 to A5. While Opposite party did not choose to file its affidavit evidence.
7) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.30/2014, by orders dated 25.01.2018, as stated, at paragraph No.1, supra.
8) It is the same order which is assailed in this appeal by the appellant contending that the fee paid is not refundable as per the terms of the contract, contained in the application, which is duly accepted by the Respondent by signing the application and that no opportunity was accorded to the Appellant to let-in its evidence. Even otherwise, the interest and compensation awarded is excessive and not permissible. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.
9) The point that arises for consideration is whether there is any irregularity or infirmity in the orders passed by the forum below and whether the same is liable to be modified? To what relief?
10) It is not in dispute that the Respondent joined his ward in the institution of the Appellant by paying the fee of Rs.10,250/- and that the Respondent got issued notice, to which the Respondent was advised that no fee is refundable. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant would contend that Appellant being an educational institution, do not answer the issues to satisfy the requirement of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11) The Respondent is seeking for refund of the fees which he paid on the ground that his child did not prefer to go to the College and therefore, immediately the refund of fees was sought. The forum below has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective and has ordered that the Appellant is liable to refund the fees together with interest @ 24% per annum from 02.04.2013 till realisation and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
12) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. Perused the material on record and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the refund of Rs.10,000/- is retained with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of payment i.e., 02.04.2013 till realization and costs of Rs.1,000/-. The direction of the District Consumer Forum to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and interest @ 24% per annum cannot, however, be sustained in view of the fact that we are awarding interest which will take care of the compensation. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly and the orders of the Forum below are modified accordingly.
13) In the result, the appeal is allowed in part accordingly but in the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 06.12.2018
