COMPLAINT FILED: 28.07.2008<br /> 17th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1654/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. N. Kiran,<br /> Aged about 20 years,<br /> S/o. Late. Nagaraj,<br /> No. 27/38, 14th Cross,<br /> Padmanabhanagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 070.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (M.S. Manjunath)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY BNM Institution of Technology,<br /> BSK II Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 070.<br /> Represented by its Director<br /> Sri. T.J. Ramamurthy.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the tuition fees paid by the complainant to an extent of Rs.61,170/- and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant took admission for B.E. (Telecommunication) course at the OP institution on 11.09.2006 by paying in all Rs.61,170/-, OP accepted the same and passed the receipt. At the time of admission complainant produced the original marks cards and other relevant records and documents. Thereafter due to some personal inconvenience within a span of 15 days of admission he intimated the OP that he is not willing to continue the said course as he is interested to join some other college of his choice. In spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP failed to refund the fees paid as well as the original marks cards. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP complainant got issued the legal notice on 01.12.2007, there was no proper response. For no fault of his, complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the complainant being the Diploma Holder joined the 3rd semester B.E. under management quota at OP institution and paid certain fees. He has also undertaken that he will not discontinue the course till it is complete. But abruptly to the reasons best known to him he remained absent, did not attend the class. Due to his unauthorized absence between 11.09.2006 to 21.09.2006, OP is unable to impart him the so called education. Thereafter on 29.09.2007 he wrote a letter indicating that he want to discontinue the studies and sought for refund of fees and marks card. The contention of the complainant that within 15 days from the date of admission he intimated the OP about the discontinuance is false. Complainant himself has voluntarily stated that he will not insist for the refund of his fees, but he wants his original marks cards. The said marks were returned to him. The seat that is taken by the complainant fell vacant because of his withdrawal in the middle of the course. OP is unable to fill up the said vacancy, thereby OP for no fault of it has suffered monetary loss. There is no obligation on the part of the OP to refund the tuition fees. When complainant is a defaulter, he cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. Though OP clarified all the doubts of the complainant, but still after belated time this complaint is filed on 28.07.2008 with ulterior motive. The so called contention of the complainant that he is entitled for the refund of the fees after deducting only Rs.1,000/- as per the AICTE and UGC Rules is not applicable to the facts on hand because complainant took the seat under management quota not under CET, etc. The whole complaint is devoid of merits. The allegations are false and frivolous. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant took admission at the OP institution under management quota after completing his Diploma for the B.E. 3rd semester on 11.09.2006 and paid the so called fees as contended. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that within 2 weeks from the date of admission he intimated the OP that he is going to discontinue the course on his personal reasons as he wants to join other College of his choice and sought for refund of the fees as well as the original marks cards, etc. But according to him OP did not respond to the said call in spite of his repeated demands. As it is complainant has not produced any document to show that within 15 days from the date of the so called admission he approached the OP seeking for the so called relief. On going through the documents, it appears for the first time complainant intimated the OP on 29.09.2007 expressing that he want to discontinue the studies and sought for refund of the fees and marks cards. The copy of the said letter is produced.<br /> <br /> 7. On the perusal of the said letter signed by the complainant he endorsed that he is not interested in refund of the fees, but he wants only original marks cards. The other document produced by the OP goes to show that complainant and his guardian the mother have undertaken that they will not discontinue the course till the said course is completed. Under such circumstances we find complainant is estopped from contending that he has got a right to discontinue the course and right to claim the refund of the fees. The approach of the complainant in that regard rather does not appears to be as very much fair and honest. <br /> <br /> 8. It is specifically contended by OP that the seat taken by the complainant under the management quota fell vacant. They have fairly submitted that if the said seat is filled up within a reasonable time they would have definitely refunded the fees. But the document produced by the OP clearly goes to show that the said seat is still fell vacant. The contents of the said documents are not disputed by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. When that is so, the averment made by the complainant in his so called legal notice seeking shelter under the letter addressed by the AICTE and UGC Rules that when the candidates withdraws the seat in the middle of the course the institution like OP can retain only Rs.1,000/- out of the fee collected and refund the rest of the fees. On plain reading of the said public notice there is a specific mention that if the seat which fell vacant is filled up then this relief will apply, that too the said seat should be given to the candidates in the waiting list. As already stated by us, complainant has not taken the seat through CET or other course, but he took the seat voluntarily under management quota. Hence for these reasons we find neither UGC rules nor the public notice issued by AICTE will come to the assistance of the complainant in seeking refund of the fees paid by him.<br /> <br /> 10. The fact that OP as per the demand made by the complainant returned the said marks cards in the month of October 2007 is not at dispute. The other document produced by the OP goes to show that complainant is irregular in attending the class and remained unauthorized absence. All these facts and circumstances clearly goes to show that there is a negligence and carelessness on the part of the complainant. Complainant himself is a defaulter. The communication received from Visvesvaraya Technological University is also produced. Which is the course complainant wanted to join, in which College after discontinuing from the OP institution is not known. If the complainant felt negligence in non-return of the so called marks card, etc., well within the reasonable time, what made him to wait up to July 2008 to file this complaint is not known. During this delay much water might have been flown. The delay in filing the complaint is not explained. <br /> <br /> 11. Viewed from any angle, the complaint allegations appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 17th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br /> <br />