BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of March 2014
Filed on : 04/08/2012
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC. 479/2012
Between
Roy Mammen Joseph, : Complainant
Puthenpurackal House, (party-in-person)
(Thappalodath House),
Adayath Lane South End,
48/1686 C, HRA 124,
Kochi-682 026.
Vs
Cochin Media School, : Opposite party
Albe’s Estate, 2nd floor, By Adv. Philip T. Varghese
Adjacent to South Over bridge, T.D. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-11
S.A Road, Cochin-682 016.
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant joined for ‘direction’ course conducted by the opposite party on 29-07-2012. The complainant remitted the fee for entrance test Rs. 562/- and an additional amount of Rs. 5,618/- was taken on condition that the amount would be refunded if he decides not to continue in the opposite party. Due to reason he decided not to join the course and the same was informed to the opposite party. In spite of repeated requests the opposite party failed to refund the amount but to no avail. This complaint hence. 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 thereafter applied for admission for direction course. The complainant appeared for the written test and was directed to attend for the interview which was scheduled on 30-07-2012, the complainant failed to attend. Again an interview was arranged on
09-08-2012, he did not attend to the same well. He was informed of the subsequent date of the third interview as well. But he opted to remain absent. The complainant has not completed the admission procedure and he is not entitled to claim refund of the secondary deposit. The complainant is not entitled for any of the relief as prayed for.
3.No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Ext. A1 to A4 were marked. Proof affidavit has been filed by the witness for the opposite party. Exbts B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite party. 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:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the security deposit ?
ii. 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 deposit the opposite party agreed to refund the amount if not joining. The opposite party vehemently contended 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 institute 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 opposite party institution 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) 1 (2012) CPJ 194.
7. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Nipun Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business 1 (2009) CPJ 3 (NC) held that “In view of this it is very clear that the institute had not suffered any loss because of no seat under the general category was kept vacant for the relevant year, secondly, UGC had received several complaints against various colleges and Institutes about the unhealthy practices indulged by them in non-refunding the fees of the students, 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 circumstance 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 even after the student withdrawn from their college. Besides the petitioners had failed
to prove that the resultant vacancy was not filled up by any other candidate for the waiting list”
10. The categorical findings of the Hon’ble National 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. The opposite party failed to prove that they had to incur loss due to the discontinuation of the course by the complainant. Further opposite party very well could have filled the vacancy of the complainant by admitting other students. Further more the unilateral statement of the opposite party in Ext. B1 that the fee once collected would not be refunded is not sustainable in law. In view of the above the opposite party is legally liable to refund the security amount collected from the complainant.
11. Point No. ii. The opposite party ought to have considered the genuine 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:
i. The opposite party shall refund the security deposit i.e. Rs. 5,618/- to the
complainant.
ii. The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant towards
compensation and costs of the proceedings.
The above order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of March 2014.
Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Exbt. A1 : Copy of g-mail dt. 26-07-2012
A2 : Copy of identity card
A3 : Copy of receipt dt. 29-06-2012
A4 : Copy of receipt dt. 29/06/2012
Opposite party’s Exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : Admission procedure and guideline
B2 : Student handbook 2012
