Cond.,

- 1 -

BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President

And

Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member

Friday the 30th day of January , 2009

C.C.No. 133/08

Between:

S. Mohammad Shahid, S/o. S. Muner Basha,

H.No.43/253-B, Upstairs, N.R Peta. Kurnool - 518 004.

                                                                            … Complainant

                                                     Versus

1. Admissions Officer, M/s. Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India,

No. 52 , Nagarjuna Hills,  Hyderabad - 500 082.

2. Centre Head, ICFAI National College,

D. No 51/12-12 E3, Upstairs, Krishna Complex, Opp. Power House , Bellary Road, Kurnool - 518 003.

                                          … Opposite parties

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.

 M. Shafiullah Ansari, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. Ch. Sudhakar Reddy , Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)

C.C.No.133/08

1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of

C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay Rs. 1 lakh

as compensation, to refund Rs.10,000/- with 24% interest p.a , cost of

the case and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is

entitled in the circumstances of the case.

Cond.,

- 2 -

2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant

is commerce graduate and aspiring to pursue Master Degree in

Business Administration in regular stream. Believing the wide publicity

of opposite party No. 1 in leading newspapers to the effect that it is

running college offering regular MBA course at various places in the

state of Andhra Pradesh and in other states, the complainant

approached opposite party No. 2 on 14-07-2007 with an intent to take

admission to the course and paid Rs.10,000/- towards two year

regularly MBA course vide receipt bearing No. 012793 on 16-07-2007.

Thereafter, the complainant contacted opposite party No. 2 as to the

commencement of classes and other details, but surprisingly even

after lapse of six months the complainant did not receive any

admission card and on enquiry the complainant came to know that the

college of opposite parties is not a regular college and it is not

recognized and affiliated to any of the universities in the state and

the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid as a precautionary deposit and

not towards admission fee. The complainant further submits that the

opposite parties are not awarding any degree or diploma , but it only

extents academic support and private study in pursuing the MBA

program of Uttarakhand University in the state of Uttarakhand inview

of the deceptive practice and false representations the complainant

lost valuable academic year and hence got issued legal notice dated

25-03-2008 to both the opposite parties and there is no response to

the said notices. Hence, there is clear deficiency of service on part of

opposite parties in misleading the complainant that their college is a

regular college and having recognition and affiliation and which caused

utmost mental agony to the complainant.

3. In support of his case the complainant side relied on the

following documents viz., (1) receipt dated 16-07-2007 for

Rs.10,000/- and (2) office copy of legal notice dated 25-03-2008,

along with postal receipts and acknowledgements, besides to the

sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint

averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 and A2 for

its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories

exchanged .

Cond.,

- 3 -

4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the

complainant the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and

contested the case by filling written version by opposite party No. 2

and adoption memo by opposite party No. 1.

5. The written version of opposite parties denies the complaint as

not maintainable either in law or on facts and submits that the

complainant purchased prospectus for the relevant year on 12-07-

2007 vide receipt No. 012790 and took admission in their institution

at his own accord , free will and consent and paid Rs.10,000/- on

16-10-2007 knowing fully well that it not refundable as mentioned in

the rules and regulations in the prospectus, enrollment form and

student hand book of the year 1 for the class of 2009. Had the

complainant intended to take up steps he could have paid the due fee

and continue the course but infact the complainant never approached

opposite parties for payment of fee nor enquired about conducting of

the class till the issuance of legal notice dated 25-03-2008 and the

said notice was not replied as the notice is devoid of truth and

vexatious . It further submits that they are ready to render service to

the complainant and the publication give on 22-06-2007 in Vartha, on

26-06-2007 in the Hindu, on 27-06-2007 in the Times of India, calling

upon for the admission into institute , it was clearly mentioned that

the “ICFAI National College offers academic support and placement

assistance to the students pursuing the MBA program to ICFAI

University , Dehradun ” and it is clear from the above that the opposite

parties never misguided and not indulged in unfair trade practice . It

further submits, the student who would drop out from the college

infact the valuable seat falls vacant and there by in incurred loss to

institution and it is for the complainant to compensate for the loss of

expected revenue to the opposite parties , as the opposite parties as

already been put to lot of inconvenience and hardship during the

academic year 2009-2010. It lastly submits that there is no deficiency

of service on their part and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with

costs.

6. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the

following documents viz., (1) application form dated 16-07-2007 of

complainant , (2) student hand book class of 2009 for the MBA program ,

Cond.,

- 4 -

(3) MBA program prospectus, (4) Paper clippings of times of India (5)

Paper clippings of Eenadu (6) paper clippings of the Hindu (7) Paper

clippings of the Vaartha (8) Office copy of provision admission letter

dated 16-07-2007 , besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party

No. 2 in reiteration of his written version averments and the above

documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B8 for its appreciation in this case

and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.

7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the

complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite

parties ?.

8. It is the case of the complainant that after seeing wide publicity

of opposite parties in leading newspapers to the effect that the opposite

parties are offering a regular MBA course, the complainant joined the

said course by submitting application form vide Ex.B1. The Ex.B1 is the

application form dated 13-07-2007 of complainant for pursuing academic

support and placement assistance and the complainant paid Rs.10,000/-

to opposite parties vide Ex.A1 , the Ex.A1 is the receipt dated 16-07-2007

issued by opposite parties as to the receipt of Rs.10,000/- from

complainant towards admission fee by way of D.D No. 677461, dated 16-

07-2007.

9. The complainant submitted that he joined the said college as it is

offering a regular MBA course by way of wide publicity in all leading

newspapers. The Ex.B4 to B7 are the paper clippings of advertisement

issued by opposite parties in Times of India , Eenadu, The Hindu and

Vartha, a perusal of these clippings goes to show that “ The ICFAI

National College ( ie., opposite parties ) offers academic support and

placement assistance to the students pursuing the MBA program of the

ICFAI University , Dehradun’ . It is clear from the above that the opposite

parties are offering only academic support and placement assistance to

the student and no where it is mentioned that they are offering regular

MBA course as alleged by the complainant in his complaint averments .

Hence plea taken by the complainant remained as a plea for plea sake

without any substantiation and it has to be disbelieved.

Cond.,

- 5 -

10. The other plea of the complainant is that the amount of

Rs.10,000/- paid by the complainant is not towards admission fee or

tuition fee but it is a precautionary deposit. On the perusal of receipt

issued by opposite parties to the complainant vide Ex.A1 , it is clearly

mentioned that the receipt of Rs.10,000/- is towards admission fee and

there is no mention precautionary deposit and this plea of complainant is

also remaining as devoid of merit and force.

11. The other plea of the complainant taken in his complaint

averments is that the opposite parties stated that their college is a

recognized one and has affiliation one of the universities in Andhra

Pradesh. In the application form (B1) or in the student hand book (Ex.B2)

there is no mention of its recognition or as to having any affiliation of

their college to one of the universities in Andhra Pradesh. Hence, this plea

of the complainant is also rejected.

12. The main relief the complainant sought in this case for the refund

of Rs.10,000/- paid by him to the opposite parties the complainant

alleges that he paid the said amount as precautionary deposit , but the

opposite parties submits that as per Ex. A1 it is admission fee and relied

on the decision of National Commission between Ram Deo Baba

Engineering College Vs Sushat Yuvraj Rode and another reported in III

1994 CPJ Pg.160, where in it was held that non refund of admission fee is

not deficiency of service . The other decision relied by opposite parties is

that of State Commission , New Delhi , between Fore School of

Management Vs Ashumiltan decided on March , 31, 2004 . Where in the

State Commission has relied on the decision of National Commission

referred above and held that non refund of admission fee is not

deficiency of service . In the light of the above decisions the decision

referred by the complainant reported in I 2007 CPJ Pg 115 (NC) has little

relevancy for its appreciation in this case.

13. To sum up, the amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by the complainant to

the opposite parties no doubt is an admission fee and the complainant in

this case is seeking for refund of said amount cannot be granted , in view

of the decision of Hon’ble National Commission (referred above) where

the National Commission specifically held that admission fee is a

consideration for admission and non refund of admission is not deficiency

Cond.,

- 6 -

of service. In view of the above law laid by the Hon’ble National

Commission the complainant in this complaint cannot seek for refund of

admission fee of Rs.10,000/- paid by him to the opposite parties . Hence

the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of reliefs and the

complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.

14. In the result, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and

force.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of January , 2009.

    Sd/-                                                                             Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :Nil                  For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1. Receipt dated 16-07-2007 for Rs. 10,000/-.

Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dated 25-03-2008 along with

Postal receipts and acknowledgements.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:

Ex.B1. Application form dated 16-07-2007 of complainant.

Ex.B2. Student hand book class of 2009 for the MBA program.

Ex.B3. MBA program prospects.

Ex.B4. Paper clippings of Times of India.

Ex.B5. Paper clippings of Eenadu.

Ex.B6. Paper clippings of the Hindu.

Ex.B7. Paper clippings of the Vartha.

Cond.,

- 7 -

Ex.B8. Office copy of provision admission letter dated 16-07-2007.

     Sd/-                                                                               Sd/-

   MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on :

Copy was dispatched on :