Date of Filing:14.05.2008<br /> Date of Order:29.08.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1130 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Smt. T. Nagamani,<br /> W/o Jagadish Pratap,<br /> R/at No.1-8-697/1, Padma Colony,<br /> Nalakunta,<br /> Hyderabad-44. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. Comed-K,<br /> Rep. by Administrative Officer,<br /> Ramanashree Chambers,<br /> Lady Curzon Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 001.<br /> <br /> 2. K.L.E. Academy of Higher Education,<br /> Rep. by Principal,<br /> Research J.N. Medical College Campus,<br /> Belgaum, Karnataka. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the daughter of the complainant got admitted to BDS Course at opposite party No.2 Dental College, Belgaum. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- to the opposite party No.1 by way of DD dated 21/06/2007. Opposite party No.1 received a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- and refunded an amount of Rs.95,000/- to the complainant and issued admission letter and receipt. It is the case of the complainant that, her daughter has got admission at Manipal University. Immediately the complainant vide letter dated 11/07/2007 addressed to the opposite party No.1 informed about the admission of her daughter at Manipal University. Complainant requested the opposite party by sending fax message dated 17/07/2007 and 18/07/2007 for refund of admission fee paid by the complainant a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-. Copies also sent to Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi, University Grant Commissioner, New Delhi and Medical Council of India, New Delhi. The University Grant Commission vide letter dated 23/04/2007 issued a public notice stating that the entire fee collected from the student after deduction of processing fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- shall be refunded to the student withdrawing from the programme. University Grant Commission in the letter dated 23/04/2007 directed the opposite party No.1 to refund fee paid by the complainant. In spite of the directions of the UGC the opposite parties failed to refund the same. Complainant is an employee working in public sector undertakings. She has suffered a lot of inconvenience and mental agony. Complainant got issued legal notice to opposite parties calling upon them to refund the admission fee of Rs.2,30,000/-. Opposite parties have given untenable reply. Complainant has suffered lot of mental agony. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, the complainant has prayed to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.2,30,000/- with interest at 12% p.a from the date of payment till realisation and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.<br /> 2. Notices were issued to opposite parties. Notices were served. Opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and submitted defence version contesting the claim. It is admitted by the opposite party No.1 that daughter of complainant appeared for counseling and she has been allotted dental seat in K.L.E Society’s Institute of Dental Sciences, Bangalore and required to report to the college on or before 20/07/2007. The opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant has paid Rs.2,30,000/-. The daughter of the complainant was required to get admitted at the college by submission of all her original documents on or before 20/07/2007. However, she had the option of surrendering her selected seat on or before 11/07/2007, in which case she would have get back Rs.2,07,000/- and her vacant seat could have been offered to aspiring candidate in the second and final round which was due to start on 13/07/2007. Opposite party No.1 has also admitted the receipt of fax dated 17/07/2007 sent by the complainant. It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that, any surrender of seat beyond 11/07/2007 was only forfeiture and not eligible for refund of fee remitted. It is submitted that refund and forfeiture of policy is intended to discourage candidates who are not serious about their selected seats. Comed-K has to fallow its rules and regulations strictly and cannot deviate to accommodate individual needs. The opposite party No.1 submitted that complaint is misconceived and it deserves to be dismissed. <br /> <br /> 3. Opposite party No.2 has sent a letter by post after receipt of the notice from the Forum. The letter has been received by this Forum on 30/06/2008. The letter reads as under:-<br /> “Advert to the above, on verification of the admission register of our Institution the said candidate allotted through Comed-K has not reported to the college and not taken the admission by remitting any fee. The candidate has paid the fees to Comed-K office which has not reimbursed the fee amount of this particular candidate to the college as she has not reported. (Copy of Comed-K letter enclosed) Therefore the question of refund of fee not paid to K.L.E Society’s Institute of Dental Sciences, Bangalore does not arise. The matter has to be settled in Comed-K office No.37, I Floor Ramanashree Chamber, Lady Curzon Road, Bangalore-560 001. <br /> Thanking you,<br /> Yours faithfully,<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> PRINCIPAL,<br /> K.L.E.SOCIETY’S<br /> INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCES, BANGALORE.<br /> <br /> 4. Arguments are heard. Opposite party No.1 has also filed written argument. <br /> 5. The point for consideration is:- <br /> Whether the opposite party No.1 can be directed to<br /> refund fee paid by the complainant? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. It is an admitted case of the parties that the daughter of complainant Miss. Chavva Prathyusha had appeared for counseling before opposite party No.1 and she had been allotted a BDS seat in K.L.E. Society’s Institute of Dental Sciences, Bangalore and she was directed to report to the college on or before 20/07/2007. The complainant is the mother of the candidate. She has paid Rs.2,30,000/- to opposite party No.1. The daughter of complainant has got seat at Manipal University. Immediately the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 by letter dated 11/07/2007. In the said letter the complainant requested one week time to withdraw admission of her daughter since admission of her daughter in Manipal University is under active consideration. The copy of letter is produced. The complainant had sent a fax for refund of fee on 17/07/2007. In the said fax she has requested for cancellation of admission of her daughter and for refund of fee paid. On 18/07/2007 again the complainant wrote a letter to the Admission Officer, Comed-K stating that her daughter got admission in Kasturaba Medical College, Manipal and requested for refund of amount paid of Rs.2,30,000/- and she has also stated that, refund of fee is justified and in line with directions of Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources and University Grant Commission, New Delhi. The complainant has produced public notice dated 23/04/2007 issued by UGC, New Delhi. The UGC directed the institutions and Universities that the entire fees collected from the student after deduction of the processing fees of not more than Rs.1,000/- shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. The University/Institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC. The complainant has also produced a letter of Under Secretary, UGC, New Delhi addressed to Registrar, K.L.E Academy of Higher Education. In the said letter the UGC requested the opposite party to ensure the compliance of the Government of India directives as contained in the UGC letters. Therefore, the opposite party No.1 cannot deny or refuse to refund the fees collected from the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has not proved or produced any documentary proof or evidence to show that the seat allotted to the daughter of complainant fell vacant during the whole academic year. So, in the absence of any proof it can safely be held that the opposite party No.1 might have allotted the seat to any eligible candidate. The only defence taken by the opposite party No.1 is that the complainant could have surrendered the seat on or before 11/07/2007 and any surrender beyond 11/07/2007 was only a forfeiture and not eligible for refund of fees remitted. The opposite party No.1 submitted that in the present case the mother of the candidate had sent a fax message on 17/07/2007 informing that her daughter got a seat in KMC, Manipal. Therefore, it is argued that the complainant is not entitled for refund. This is too much technical argument advanced by the opposite party No.1. The cutoff date fixed by the opposite party No.1 for surrender of fees will not bind the complainant. The Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In this case, the opposite party No.1 wants to take defence on technical ground that the complainant could have surrendered the seat on or before 11/07/2007 and not thereafter. This cutoff date does not bind the complainant. The complainant has not made any delay in informing the opposite party that her daughter had got admission in KMC, Manipal and she had sent a fax on 17/07/2007 and requested for refund of fee. Again on 18/07/2007 she had written a letter to opposite party No.1 withdrawing the seat and requesting the refund. So, under these circumstances, opposite party No.1 cannot deny or refused to refund the amount. Admittedly, the daughter of complainant had not taken admission of BDS Course in the K.L.E Society’s Dental College. In a similar and identical case this Forum in complaint No.2493 of 2007 directed the MVG college of Engineering, White Field, Bangalore to refund fee collected from the candidate since the candidate got admission to another college through CET Counsel. The institution aggrieved by the judgment of this Forum had preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.1063 of 2008. The Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the appeal of the college and directed the institution to refund fees collected. The Hon’ble State Commission has observed as under:- <br /> <br /> “Now the UGC has issued a circular to all the educational institutions to refund the money in the event if a candidate secured admission by CET in some other college.<br /> <br /> Further it is not the case of the OP that the son of the complainant attended the classes if any. It is also not the case of the appellant that the seat given to the son of the complainant by way of admission continued to be vacant throughout the academic year. Therefore, in our view the DF is right in directing the OP to refund the money paid by the complainant for admission to B.E Course.” <br /> <br /> <br /> So, in view of the binding nature of judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission, the present case on hand is also identical one with the case decided earlier. Therefore, the opposite party must be directed to refund the fees collected from the complainant. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the complainant has proved sufficiently the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 and therefore, she is entitled for the refund of the fees. The complainant has prayed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite parties for mental agony and inconvenience suffered. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a case to grant compensation for mental agony. This is a simple case seeking refund of fee paid towards admission. The ends of justice will be met in ordering the opposite party No.1 to refund Rs.2,29,000/- to the complainant after deducting Rs.1,000/- towards processing fee out of Rs.2,30,000/- as per the UGC Circular. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.2,29,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order within 30 days by the opposite party No.1 the above amount carries interest at 12% p.a from the date of this order till payment/realisation. <br /> 8. The complainant is entitled to Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party No.1. <br /> 9. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the amount to the complainant directly by way of D.D or cheque with intimation to this Forum. <br /> <br /> <br /> 10. Send the copy of this Order to all the parties as per statutory requirements immediately. <br /> <br /> 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> rhr<br />