IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 128/09 (Filed on 23.09.2009)Between: 1. K.R. Sasidharan Nair, Sreenilayam House, Omalloor, Attarikam, Pathanamthitta – 689 647. 2. Sreeja. S. Nair, --do-- --do— (Adv. R. Gopikrishnan) .... Complainants. And: 1. Frank Finn Institute of Air Hostess Training, Vetteel Estate, K.K. Road, Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam – 686 004, represented by its Centre Head. (By Adv. K. Radhakrishnan) 2. Majoy Mathew, S/o. Mathew, Veloor Vadakkethil, Mathoor P.O., Pathanamthitta. .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President: The complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainants’ case is that the first complainant is the father of the second complainant and the first opposite party is an institute providing Air Hostess Training and the second opposite party is the Educational Advisor of the first opposite party. The second complainant secured an admission in the first opposite party’s institute for one year BTEC (HNC) in Aviation, Hospitality and Travel Management through the second opposite party. The second complainant joined in the course on 13.07.2009 by paying ` 3,750 as registration fee and ` 32,000 as admission fee and batch start fee for which the first opposite party issued receipts also. But when the classes started, the second complainant convinced that there is no basic infrastructure for the course as stated by the opposite parties. After attending 3 days in the class, the second complainant was unable to attend the class and thereafter she was forced to discontinue the course on medical grounds. Thereafter, the first complainant requested the opposite parties to return the amount paid by them. But they were reluctant to the same and as a last resort; the first complainant issued a registered notice to the first opposite party on 17.07.2009, which was received, by the first opposite party. But they have not returned the amount so far. The opposite parties are bound to return the amount demanded by the complainants with 12% interest. The non-payment of the amount by the opposite parties is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused financial loss, mental agony and other distress to the complainants, and the opposite parties are liable for the same. Hence, this complaint for the realisation of ` 35,750 with 12% interest per annum along with compensation of ` 25,000 and cost of this proceedings. 3. The main contentions in the first opposite party’s version is as follows: It is admitted by the first opposite party that the second complainant had joined in the course and paid ` 35,750 as course fee and others and she had attended the classes till 17th July 2009. Later, the second complainant voluntarily withdrawned from the course. Since the discontinuation of the course by the second complainant is voluntary and not due to the fault of the first opposite party, the first opposite party is not liable to refund the amount remitted by the complainants. The complainants are not entitled to demand the amount in the light of the agreement executed by the second complainant at the time of admission agreeing the terms and conditions of the first opposite party that the course fee once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances and that in the event of the student leaving the course at any point of time before the completion of the course, for any reason, whatsoever, the student shall pay the balance course fees as it would otherwise cause FIAT loss of one seat in the said course/class for none of its fault, failing which FIAT reserves the right to initiate legal proceedings in the appropriate court of law to recover the balance course fee at the cost and risk of the student. That no claim of refund of fee paid by the student shall be entertained in such a case and the same shall be forfeited. 4. Because of the discontinuation of the second complainant, the second complainant’s seat was continuing as vacant which caused financial loss to the first opposite party, as they could not admit any other in that vacancy. The allegation that the discontinuation of the second complainant was due to the fault of the first opposite party is false. The second complainant’s seat in the course is still vacant, and she can continue the course if she desires so. The second opposite party is a stranger to the first opposite party and he is not at all connected with the first opposite party. Therefore, they have not committed any deficiency of service towards the complainants. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. The main contentions in the second opposite party’s version is that he is not an agent of the first opposite party or he had no connection with the first opposite party. The second opposite party is unaware of the transactions between the complainants and the first opposite party and he had not instigated the complainants to join the course. All the allegations against the second opposite party is false and he was arrayed as a party to this proceedings falsely with an intention for getting an artificial territorial jurisdiction to this Hon’ble Forum. With the above contentions, the second opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not? 7. The evidence of this case consists of the oral deposition of second complainant and the first opposite party based on their proof affidavits and Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts.B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 8. The Point: The complainants’ allegation against the opposite parties is that because of the laches of the first opposite party and due to medical grounds, the second complainant was compelled to discontinue the course of the first opposite party and hence the first opposite party is liable to return the course fee and other fees of ` 35,750 with interest to the complainants. Hence they demanded to refund the said amount, which was denied by the first opposite party. The non-payment amounts to deficiency of service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainants. 9. In order to prove the complainant’s allegations, the second complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination narrating her case along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the second complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the registration fee receipt dated 13.07.2009 for ` 3,750 in the name of the second complainant. Ext.A2 is the fee receipt dated 13.07.2009 for ` 32,000 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the second complainant. Ext.A3 is the photocopy of the medical certificate dated 17.07.2009 issued by Veda Nursing Home, Omalloor to the second complainant. Ext.A4 is the copy of letter dated 17.07.2009 sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party demanding the payment of ` 35,750. 10. On the other hand, the first opposite party’s contention is that the discontinuation of the course by the second complainant is not due to the fault of the first opposite party and is due to the fault of the second complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed by the second complainant at the time of admission, the complainants are not entitled to the admission fees remitted and the first opposite party is not liable to return the said amount as the second complainant had voluntarily withdrawned from the course for the reasons best known to her. 11. In order to prove the first opposite party’s contentions, the first opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination narrating their case along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the first opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the copy of the agreement-dated 13.07.2009 executed between the parties at the time of admission. Ext.B2 is the copy of the application form of the second complainant for getting the admission. 12. The second opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in his favour. 13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have gone through the materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the admission and regarding discontinuation of the course by the second complainant. The only dispute is with regard to the refund of the fees remitted by the complainants. According to the complainants, the second complainant had discontinued the course due to medical grounds and she is entitled to get the fees remitted. According to the first opposite party, the discontinuation of the course by the second complainant was not due to any fault of the first opposite party and due to discontinuation, they have lost one seat in the said course. Therefore, and in the light of the agreement executed by the second complainant, the complainants are not entitled to get the fees remitted and the first opposite party is not liable to return the same. 14. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, we have gone through the deposition and Ext.B1 agreement. On a perusal of the deposition of PW1 and Ext.B1, it is seen that the second complainant had withdrawned from the course not due to the fault of the first opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of Ext.B1, the complainants are not entitled to demand the refund of the fees remitted. The relevant portion of deposition of PW1 is as follows: “18 hb ]q#175;nbmbXn\p tijamWv FXrI£n ]\¯n tImgvkn\v tN#182;Xv. FXrI£n ]\¯n \ÂInb FÃm tcJIfpw Rm³ Xs¶bmWv H¸n«p \ÂInbXv. .......... . .. . . . . .F\n¡pmb tcmK§ImcWamWv tImgvkv disconsinue sNbvXXv F¶v kXyhmMvaqe¯nepw lnbnepw ]dªn«pv. . . . . . . .tImgvkn XpStcXnsöv FXrI£nI]dªn«nÃ. . . . . . . ..Prospectus Hs¡ hmbn¨p a\em¡nb tijamWv tImgvkn\v tN#182;Xv. Ct¸mFs¶ ImWn¨Xv Rm³ H¸n«p sImSp¯ agreementâ ]I#184;mWv “. 15. Moreover, as per Exts.A1 and A2 also, the second complainant had agreed in the tune that she will not claim the fees once paid as she had put her signature below the condition printed as follows: “The fees once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances”. In view of the above circumstances and from the over all facts and circumstances of this case, the demand for the refund is not sustainable. Moreover, a series of judgments of the Apex Forums were also against the complainants’ claim. In the circumstances, we find that this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs. However, this order will not prejudice the first opposite party’s liberty to refund either the whole amount or any part thereof to the complainants, if they so desires, as a curtsey towards a former student. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of October, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainants: PW1 : Sreeja. S. Nair. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants: A1 : Registration fee receipt dated 13.07.2009 for ` 3,750 in the name of the second complainant. A2 : Fee receipt dated 13.07.2009 for ` 32,000 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the second complainant. A3 : Photocopy of the medical certificate dated 17.07.2009 issued by Veda Nursing Home, Omalloor to the second complainant. A4 : Copy of letter dated 17.07.2009 sent by the first complainant to the first opposite party. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Deepa Dan George. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Copy of the agreement-dated 13.07.2009 executed between the second complainant and first opposite party. B2 : Copy of the application form of the second complainant for getting the admission. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) K.R. Sasidharan Nair, Sreenilayam House, Omalloor, Attarikam, Pathanamthitta – 689 647. (2) Sreeja. S. Nair, --do-- --do— (3) Centre Head. Frank Finn Institute of Air Hostess Training, Vetteel Estate, K.K. Road, Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam – 686 004. (4) Majoy Mathew, S/o. Mathew, Veloor Vadakkethil, Mathoor P.O., Pathanamthitta. (5) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | , | | 
