KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. FA 06/11
JUDGMENT DATED: 29-07-2011
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
Institute of Human Resources Development
(Represented by the Director)
Prajoe’o Towers, Vazhuthacadu,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. B.A. Krishnakumar)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. Anil V. Anand
48/349, Varammel Lane,
Perandur, Elamakkara,
Cochin.
2. V. Vijayanand
48/349, Varammel Lane,
Perandur,Elamakkara,
Cochin.
JUDGMENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The opposite party in CCNo. 152/2007 is the appellant herein who is aggreived by the order dated 15-06-2010 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. As per the impugned order, the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 38,700/- with 9% annual interest from 20-06-05 till date of realization with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
2. The complainants had approached the forum stating the 1st complainant got admission under management quota in Electronics and Communication Branch in Model Engineering College, Ernakulam under the opposite party and that he paid
Rs. 38,700/- to the opposite party. It was further submitted that on getting admission for B-Tech Degree Course under BITS – PILANI Goa, the complainant left the college on 10.8.05 and that though he had demanded the amount paid by him, the opposite party refused to refund the same and in the complaint it was prayed that the opposite party be directed to refund the sum of Rs. 38,700/- with compensation and cost.
3. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing version where in it was contended that the 1st complainant had obtained the admission in the management quota in the self Financing Engineering College and the opposite party is liable for refund of the fee only if the candidate gets admission in Government aided. Engineering Colleges or Courses in the first round of allotment counselling by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination, Kerala.
It was further contended that as the 1st complainant got admission in the management seat and that he left the college on getting admission in BITS – PILANI Goa, he would not come under the courses mentioned above and hence the non-refund of the amount was justifiable. Submitting that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence consisted of the testimony of the first complainant as PW1 and Ext. P1 to P14. It is based on the said evidence that the forum below passed the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued before us that the order of the forum below is unsustainable, on the ground that the forum below did not appreciate the contentions of the opposite party properly. It is argued by him that the opposite party is liable to refund the fee only if the candidate gets an admission in any Government Aided Engineering College or for any course in the first round of allotment by the commissioner for Entrance Examination Kerala. It is his very case that the 1st complainant got admission in the management quota and that after his leaving the college, the opposite party had to fill up the seat by admitting another candidate in the merit seat after receiving
Rs. 4,907/- only. The learned counsel relied on the Government order No. GORT No. 744/03/H Edn. Dated 25-09-2003 in support his contention and submitted before us that the order of the forum below to be set –aside with costs.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for appellant and also on going through the hearing notes submitted by the 1st and 2nd respondents/complainants, we find that the 1st complainant had obtained the admission to the B-tech course under the opposite party in the management seat and that the complainants had paid
Rs. 38,700/- towards annual tuition fee for admission to the course for the year 2005-06. It is also the admitted fact that the 1st complainant had left the college on getting admission in BITS – PILANI, Goa, and that he left the college on 10-8-05. The complainants would argue that they are entitled for the refund of the course fee remitted by them, since the 1st complainant did not get any service / education from the opposite party and as per Ext. P5, the 1st complainant is entitled to get refund of the fee as he had left the college before the commencement of the course. But the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the 1st complainant had left the course, for joining a course in another college, which is not a college coming under the rules and regulations of the State of Kerala, the 1st complainant is not entitled for the refund of the fee. However, It is found that as per the G.O. dated 29.05.03, the candidate is entitled for the refund of fee if he gets an admission in Government aided Engineering Colleges or Courses in the first round of allotment counselling by the commissioner for Entrance Examination, Kerala. We have gone through Ext. P5. Which is being relied on by the respondents. We find that the All Indian Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has stated that the entire fee collected from the students can be returned after deducting Rs. 1,000-/ towards processing fee, if the student leaves the course and if the seat is being subsequently filled up by another candidate. We find that the said circular has been issued only in the year 2007. The 1st complainant had left the college on 10-08-05. All the same it is found that the 1st complainant had left the college before the commencement of the course and the opposite party had filled up the vacancy in the merit seat by collecting Rs. 4,907/-.
Hence it is our considered view that opposite party is liable to refund Rs. 4,907/- to the complainant. It is also seen that the forum below had ordered 9% annual interest from 20-06-05 and had ordered
Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. We find that as interest is ordered the opposite party is not bound to pay separate compensation in the instant case. However, the cost of Rs. 2,000/- ordered by the forum below is sustained.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications noted above. Thereby the appellant/opposite party is liable to refund
Rs. 4,907/- with 9% interest from 20.06.05 till the date of payment with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. In the facts under circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
The office is directed to return the LCR to the forum below along with a copy of this order.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
DA
