BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 04/08/2012

Date of Order : 31/03/2014

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 468/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-

The complainant joined for Editing course conducted by the opposite party on 29-06-2012. A registration fee of Rs. 562/-, which the opposite party said is non-refundable and a security deposit of Rs. 5,618/- which the opposite party specifically mentioned is refundable if not joining. There was an entrance exam and before writing the examination, the complainant was asked to pay the security deposit, accordingly she paid the same. The complainant attended the examination on 29-06-2012 and the opposite party did not even bother to inform the complainant the interview date. At that juncture, the complainant requested the opposite party to refund the security deposit to which the opposite party turned a deaf ear. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the security deposit together with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/-and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite party is as follows :-

The complainant attended the counseling session and orientation session, and therefore, applied for admission for editing course. The complainant appeared for the written test. She was directed to attend for the interview, which was scheduled on 23-07-2012. She did not attend the interview. The next interview was scheduled on 30-07-2012, the complainant failed to attend. Again an interview was arranged on 09-08-2012, she did not attend to the same as well. She was informed of the dates of all the three interviews. The complainant has not completed the admission procedure and she is not entitled to claim any refund. The complainant is not entitled for any of the relief as prayed for.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on her side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the opposite party.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the security deposit?

2. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. :- According to the complainant, at the time of payment of the security amount, the opposite party agreed to refund the amount, if not joining. The opposite party vehemently and vigorously contented that it is specifically stated in Ext. B1 Admission procedure and guideline that the security amount is not refundable. It is not in dispute that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 5,618/- to the opposite party by way of security deposit in connection with 'direction course' conducted by the opposite party. It is also not in dispute that the complainant discontinued the course at the outset.

6. Although, the opposite party was not conventional educational institution, but since they are providing coaching and training to students of an educational nature same principle that applies to educational institutions would also apply to these institutions in respect of fees. It was so held by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FIIT Jee Ltd. Vs. Minathi Rath (Dr.) I (2012) CPJ 194.

7. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Nipun Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC), held that “In view of this it is very clear that the Institute had not suffered any loss because no seat under the general category was kept vacant for the relevant year, secondly, UGC had received several complaints against various colleges and institutions about the unhealthy practices indulged by them in non-refunding the fees of the student, who had for some reason or the other had to discontinue/withdraw from the Institute and had secured admission in some other college/Institute.”

8. Responding to the condition imposed by the Institution that the fee once collected would not be refunded in any circumstances, in Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh III (2009) CPJ 33 (NC), the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, held that the above condition is one sided and biased totally in favour of the Institute and against the principle of equity and natural justice and it is not a fair trade practice.

9. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Andra University Vs. Janjanam Jagadesh III (2010) CPJ 310 (NC), held that “As per these guidelines which will have overriding effect over the University’s own guidelines and keeping in view that the respondent/complainant in this case within a week of depositing the fees and the certificate had requested for being withdrawn from the course without attending any class and in view of the UGC guidelines, we are of the view that the petitioner/opposite parties institute as unfair as retaining the entire fee, evenafter the student withdraw from their college. Besides, the petitioners had failed to prove that the resultant vacancy was not filled up by any other candidate from the waiting list.”

10. The categorical findings of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission squarely apply to the facts of the case in hand. In the instant case, the opposite party does not have a case that the seat of the complainant was lying vacant through out the course period. Further, the opposite party failed to prove that they had to incur loss due to the discontinuation of the course by the complainant. Furthermore, the opposite party very well could have filled the vacancy of the complainant by admitting other students. In view of the above, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the security deposit.

11. Point No. ii. :- The opposite party should have considered the grievances of the complainant, at the outset, in which they failed which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Compensation and costs of the proceedings are called for. We fix it at Rs. 1,000/-.

12. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-

1. The opposite party shall refund the security deposit ie. Rs. 5,618/- (Rupees Five thousand six hundred and eighteen only) to the complainant.

2. The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation and costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realisation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of March 2014.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========