Date of Filing: 30/05/2018
Date of Order: 19/06/2020
BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated: 19THDAY OF JUNE2020
PRESENT
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Retd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT
MR.Y.S.THAMMANNA, B.Sc, LL.B., MEMBER
MRS.SHARAVATHI S.M., B.A., LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.881/2018
COMPLAINANT: | | Ms. RACHANA.A Aged about 19 years, D/o.late. Shivaramakrishna, R/at Flat No.1002, Purva Highlands, Mallasandra Off Kanakapura Road, Bangalore 560 02. (Smt. Pushpalatha N.S., Adv for complainant) |
| |
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTY: | | ALLIANCE UNIVERSITY, Chikkahagada Cross, Chandapura – Anekal Main Road, Bangalore, Rep. by its Registrar, Karnataka, India. (Mr Cyril Prasad Pail, Advocate for OP) |
| |
ORDER
BY SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as O.P) alleging deficiency in service and of unfair trade practice and to direct the O.P to refund Rs.2,14,500/- along with interest at 18% p.a., and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and such other relief as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper along with costs and such other expenses.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that:
The OPis a university/institution offering course of B.A., LL.B. It conducted entrance test in which complainant also participated and got through the said entrance test, which was held on May 16th 2016. After the result OP demanded and insisted the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards initial payment in order to issue provisional admission to the said course and to pay the remaining tuition fee within 20 days from thereafter. She paid the same for which OP issued a receipt. At that time, the result of II PUC was not yet declared. She also informed OP that she has also applied for law course with various other institution and awaiting result.
3. It is contended that on 25th May 2016 II PUC result were declared, and she approached the OP and sought advise that in case the entire amount of fee is paid, and if she gets a seat in other institution, whether she could get the refund of the fee paid to which OP assured that it would be refunded and hence she paid fee of Rs.1,89,500/- on 01.06.2016 for which receipt was issued.
4. She got a seat in Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies R.V.Road, Bangalore, which is nearer to her house and having easyaccessibility and commutation and further the fee was only Rs.1,00,000/-. On 13.06.2016, she approached OP for refund of the amount paid by her. She was asked to make an application in writing. Inspite of it, OP did not refund the amount and on 28.07.2016when she approached the OP to refund the amount again, she was asked to make an application again in a prescribed form and asked her to surrender the original receipt and provisional admission certificate which she did. Inspite of the assurance by OP that within two months, the amount would be refunded, OP did not pay the said amount on the ground that there were some misunderstanding in the management and some litigations going on and the accounts of the institution has been freezed and could not refund the amount immediately. There were lot of people approaching for refund. She had to issue a legal notice to OP demanding the refund of the amount which OP refused to receive. Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the complainant in retaining the amount paid by her and in not refunding the same and hence the complaint.
5.Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the forum through its advocate. Inspite of obtaining several opportunities for filing version, it did not file the same and hence this forum took it as version notfiled and posted the case for complainant’s evidence. Even the application filed seeking permission of the forum to file version was rejected.
6. In order to prove the case,complainant filed affidavit evidence and also got marked six documents as Ex.P1 to P6. We have heard the arguments of complainant
7. The following points arise for our consideration:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the
O.P?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
8. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT 1): In the Affirmative.
POINT 2): Partly in the affirmative.
As per the final order:
REASONS
POINT No.1:-
9. After perusing the complaint, evidence and documents of complainant,it becomes clear that complainant admitted to OP’s institution by paying a sum of Rs.25,000/- as registration charge and Rs.500/- towards B.Sc., 2% card payment in all Rs.25,500/- as per Ex.P.2 and Rs.1,89,500/- [towards tuition fee i.e of Rs.1,75,000/-, Rs.10,000/- towards refundable caution deposit, Rs.1,500/- towards convocation fee and Rs.3,000/- towards alliance alumni association fee]. It is well settled that “Candidate who pays fee to a education institution for attending classes and appearing in examination is a consumer and publication of result is a service”.
10. Ex.P4 is the copy of the application given by the complainant to OP seeking refund of the amount and Ex.P.5 is the copy of the legal notice issued, which has been returned unserved with an endorsement that the addressee has refused to receive which is at Ex.P6 postal cover.
11. It is the contention of the complainant that since she got a seat in Bangalore Institute of Legal services, R.V.Road, Bangalore, she did not want to continue her admission with OP and sought for the refund of the same.
12. In “BupeshKurana and others V/s VishwaBudhaParishat and Others, it is held that:-
The imparting of education by an educational institution for a consideration falls within the ambit of ‘Service’ under the consumer protection Act and there is deficiency in service or an unfair trade practice, the institution shall be liable to compensate loss to the consumer.
Moreover, in the instant case, OP institution is not a statutory bodyand it is a private institution rendering service on getting fees from the students. Hence it comes under consumer protection Act.
13. If any student leaves the institution midway before completing the full course for any reason whatsoever, including transfer of parents/ guardians/ ill health of self, provider of service to forfeit the entire amount for which it has not provided the service is against the public policy and good conscious, unjust and unconscionable as the provider of service has the right to charge consideration only for which it has provided the services.
14. It is observed that the complaint was in respect of non-refund of fees, and not about conducting examinations. There were several judgments including a five member bench judgment of the National commission in case of BhupeshKhurana and Others V/s Vishwa Buddha Parishad, where it was held that imparting of education by educational institutions for consideration falls within the ambit of service. So complaints about deficiency in service in respect of non refund of fees, running of courses without recognition or affiliation etc. would be maintainable before Consumer Fora. The fee was paid on 16.05.2016 and on 01.06.2016 and request for refund was made on 30.07.2016.There was ample time to fill up the seats which had fallen vacant. The institution had also failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the cancelled admission had resulted in the seats remaining vacant for academic year. Further it is known fact that there are more candidates than available seats. Educational institutions generally take a false plea that the cancelled seat remained vacant. Admitting another candidate without refunding the fees of a student who has withdrawn results in double enrichment. Such institutes have become commercial shops and there cannot be any worse form of unscrupulous and unfair trade practice in the field of education.
15. The objective of the consumer protection Act is to curb such practices where students and their parents are exploited. Accordingly by its judgment of July1 delivered by judicial member UshalThakare for the bench along with DhanrajKhamatkar, the Maharashtra State Commission concluded that a clause stating that fees once paid shall not be refunded is unconscionable and void.As a service provider, cannot retain the money when no service has been rendered. The student can seek a refund even if receipts states that fees are non refundable. Similar views are taken in Brilliant Tutorials Vs Rahul Das in Appeal NO. 509/2006 and inIslamic Academy of Education and another v/s State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SC No.697.
16. In view of the above decision, we are of the opinion that the Opcan deduct only Rs.25,500/- being the registration charges and other charges for the course and OP has no right to retain a sum of Rs.1,89,500/- and to return the same to the complainant with interest at 12% p.a., from 30.07.2016 till payment of the entire amount. Hence we answerPoint No.1 in the Affirmative.
POINT NO.2:
17. In view of the above discussion, O.P has put the complainantunder physical and mental stress for which he has to be compensated for which we assess the damages at Rs.10,000/- in the absence of concrete evidence. The act of the O.P made the complainant to knock the doors of this forum by paying court fee and also spent money in attending the Forum hearing on each and every day. We are of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.5,000/- if awarded towards litigation expenses ends of justice could be met. Hence we answer Point No.2Partly in the Affirmativeand we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The complaint is partly allowed with cost.
2. The OP i.e. Alliance University Represented by its Registrar/Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,89,500/-along with interest at 12% p.a., from 30.07.2016 till the date of payment of entire amount.
3. Further O.P is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages and of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation expensesto the complainant.
4. The O.P is directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the complaints/ version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on thisDay of19th JUNE 2020)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1:Ms. Rachana A- Complainant.
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Copy of the letter dated 16.05.2016
Ex P2: Copy of the Receipt for a sum of Rs.25,500/-dated 16.05.2016
Ex P 3: Copy of the receipt for a sum of Rs.1,89,500/- dated 01.06.2016
Ex P 4: Copy for the application for cancellation of admission
Ex P 5: Legal notice dated 01.03.2017.
Ex P 6: Unserved cover.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
-Nil-
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
-Nil-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
A*
